Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Charles CW Cooke: Voter ID and Gun Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marion County, Tennessee
    Posts
    214

    Charles CW Cooke: Voter ID and Gun Rights

    I definitely found this interesting:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rles-c-w-cooke

    FUQ:

    Why, I wonder, are voter ID’s recusants so deafeningly silent when it comes to the stumbling blocks that are constructed in front of other constitutional rights, including ones that are literally and explicitly enumerated? As the Supreme Court has now rightly confirmed, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and, however the future jurisprudence fills in the blanks and defines the scope of that right, it remains immutably, unassailably, incontrovertibly true that all law-abiding Americans enjoy the right to buy and to own firearms and, by extension, that governments at every level are prohibited from restricting that right. And yet they damn well do, all the time, and to nary a squeak from the anti-voter-ID crowd.
    I carry everywhere because crime doesn't make appointments.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Yep. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Great observation.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Nice word, recusant! I'll have to remember this one and throw it into my writing and conversations, perhaps in place of "resistant American" or alternate it with dissident and recusant. It means refusing to submit to authority ecclesiastical (the original use) or secular, a refusenick. LOL, an antonym is papist. Sweeet, for a confessing Lutheran.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    The author acknowledges the fact that voter ID laws are a stumbling block to a constitutional right.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Please show us the hypothetical right to vote in the Constitution, not the several amendments that prohibit particular "stumbling blocks" to the hypothetical by the states.

    There is no Federal Constitutional Right to vote.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-18-2014 at 05:28 PM. Reason: EMPHASIS FOR THE HARD OF READING
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Please show us the hypothetical right to vote in the Constitution, not the several amendments that prohibit particular "stumbling blocks" to the hypothetical by the states.

    There is no Federal Constitutional Right to vote.
    Not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .”

    Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."
    The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race;
    the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex;
    the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax;
    the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .”

    Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."
    The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race;
    the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex;
    the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax;
    the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."

    Looks like in all those "rights" it is conditional. Does that make it a right or a privilege? I think it's a privilege one of the only ones mentioned for those not in public service.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Please show us the hypothetical right to vote in the Constitution, not the several amendments that prohibit particular "stumbling blocks" to the hypothetical by the states.

    There is no Federal Constitutional Right to vote.
    I'm guessing you were making a point that no rights come from the Constitution? (As our esteemed member SVG reminds us )
    Last edited by georg jetson; 02-18-2014 at 10:56 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I'm guessing you were making a point that no rights come from the Constitution? (As our esteemed member SVG reminds us)
    No. There is no natural law enfranchisement. There is no enfranchisement in the Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights. The States have diddled with it inconsistently. Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution have tried to rationalize the States diddling.

    The Founding Fathers righteously feared the demos, the vulgar and the common (Greek, Latin and French rooted synonyms).
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Nice word, recusant! I'll have to remember this one and throw it into my writing and conversations, perhaps in place of "resistant American" or alternate it with dissident and recusant. It means refusing to submit to authority ecclesiastical (the original use) or secular, a refusenick. LOL, an antonym is papist. Sweeet, for a confessing Lutheran.
    Verbose is a more apt term for Mr. Charles CW Cooke.....Oxford "trained" .....punk kid.

    http://www.charlescwcooke.com/

    Anyway,

    The 15th (1870), 19th (1920), 24th (1964): The right of citizens of the United States to vote... and the 26th (1971): The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote...

    There never was any doubt that citizens have the right to vote. Everybody "knows" this. There was doubt whether or not states could restrict who specifically (the royal specifically) could vote.

    The "right to vote" is not a natural right because you need to "make" something that is not naturally available, a government for example, to vote for something, or someone, in the first instance. Though, I guess folks could vote to infringe my right to life liberty, and property in the absence of a/the "state."
    Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2] private-property anarchism,[3] libertarian anarchism[4]) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state, while retaining the concept of private property, in favor of individual sovereignty.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    I believe that randomly selected ruling entities - individual or corporate - could only do better than the current choices among self-interested parties. Read the Ancient Greeks on the practice and application of Sortition. It persists today in US jury selection.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read. - Mark Twain
    Just sayin.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Just agreein'

    Better twelve morons than twelve selfish axe-grinders.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •