[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: FLUSH: ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities Source: [None] URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva ... matic-weapons-in-large-cities/ Published: Nov 12, 2014 Author: Andrew Kirell Post Date: 2014-11-12 12:32:26 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 40300 Comments: 99 Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities. Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform. Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” Watch below, via TheBlaze: Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 77. #1. To: A K A Stone (#0) Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. Cities can exert no exemption to the requirements of the Constitution. For those who choose to blather about the militia, the militia includes virtually all men between the ages of 17 to 45, and female citizens in the National Guard. The right reserved by the people, and not delegated to the government, is reserved for all and not just members of the militia. As Madison shows in Federalist 46, the right is not reserved for the purpose of deer hunting but as a defense against an overreaching Federal government. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 10 U.S.C. §311 §311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Madison, Federalist 46, re the Militia Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-12   13:25:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: nolu chan (#1) "The right reserved by the people, and not delegated to the government, is reserved for all and not just members of the militia." Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people". Who were "the people"? At the time, they were the rich white men. The ones with someting to lose. The ones who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect their interests. Only "the people" could vote (Article I, Section 2), for example. And back then, those were the rich white men only. Only they had the right to vote, to assemble, petition the government, keep and bear arms, and be free from ubreasonable searches. Now, who was in the militia back then? According to the Militia Act of 1792, only white adult male citizens. Not women. Not black slaves. Not children. Not non-citizens. Therefore, not all persons. Only "the people". The second amendment protected their right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. State constitutions protected the rights of other persons. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-15   11:45:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: misterwhite (#5) Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people". Who were "the people"? At the time, they were the rich white men. The ones with someting to lose. The ones who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect their interests. Only "the people" could vote (Article I, Section 2), for example. And back then, those were the rich white men only. Only they had the right to vote, to assemble, petition the government, keep and bear arms, and be free from ubreasonable searches. The people were those who organized as political communities called States. The people hold sovereignty which is exercised only as States. The Federal government had no say in who could, or could not, vote. Only later did amendments and federal law forbid voting discrimination based on race or sex, etc. Voting was not restricted to rich White people or men. Neither was it restricted to citizens. Blacks, women, and aliens all voted in the early days of the nation. In early presidential and senatorial elections there was no popular vote at all. To this day, there is no constitutional right to vote for president, as noted in Bush v. Gore. [The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1.] Who was entitled to vote was entirely a matter under State purview and varied from state to state. For one example, in New Jersey, women voted. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b-who-voted-in-early-america After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history. "Of Government in Petticoats!!!" The provision on suffrage in the New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to "all inhabitants" who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50 English pounds (not necessarily a freehold), and resided in a county for at least one year. No one is sure what was meant by "all inhabitants" since the New Jersey constitutional convention was held in secret. But it appears that no agitation for woman suffrage occurred at the convention. After the state constitution was ratified by the voters (presumably only men voted), little comment on the possibility of women voting took place in the state for 20 years. Even so, one state election law passed in 1790 included the words "he or she." It is unclear how many, or if any, women actually voted during this time. In 1797, a bitter contest for a seat in the New Jersey state legislature erupted between John Condict, a Jeffersonian Republican from Newark, and William Crane, a Federalist from Elizabeth. Condict won the election, but only by a narrow margin after Federalists from Elizabeth turned out a large number of women to vote for Crane. This was probably the first election in U.S. history in which a substantial group of women went to the polls. Blacks clearly voted: The Supreme Court of North Carolina, State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. and Bat. 20, opinion of the court: The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution. U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Curtis, dissenting opinion in Scott v. Sanford: The Constitution of New Hampshire conferred the elective franchise upon "every inhabitant of the State having the necessary qualifications," of which color or descent was not one. The Constitution of New York gave the right to vote to "every male inhabitant, who shall have resided," &c., making no discrimination between free colored persons and others. See Con. of N.Y., Art. 2, Rev.Stats. of N.Y., vol. 1, p. 126. That of New Jersey, to "all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth £ 50 proclamation money, clear estate." New York, by its Constitution of 1820, required colored persons to have some qualifications as prerequisites for voting, which white persons need not possess. And New Jersey, by its present Constitution, restricts the right to vote to white male citizens. Aliens clearly voted: http://www.ehistory.com/uscw/library/or/123/0369.cfm OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-15   18:56:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: nolu chan (#11) "Voting was not restricted to rich White people or men. Neither was it restricted to citizens. Blacks, women, and aliens all voted in the early days of the nation." Those were rare and small exceptions to the rule. My point was that only "the people" were allowed to vote. And 99.9% of them were adult, white male citizens. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   13:10:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: misterwhite (#14) My point was that only "the people" were allowed to vote. And 99.9% of them were adult, white male citizens. What you actually said was: Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people". You were explicitly commenting upon the Constitution, not State laws on qualifications for State offices. The Second Amendment is organic law. It was a restriction on the delegation of power to the Federal government. It said "the people" and it did not exclude anyone from "the people" as you claim. The RKBA was a preexisting right, predating the Constitution, and was not something that flowed from the Constitution. The express restriction on the Federal government was unlimited, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms was never restricted to rich White people. Your fanciful imaginary rewrite of the Constitution has no basis in law or history. If such was Constitution in 1789, what amendment changed that and when did the change enter into force? What the States did was left to the States regarding voter qualifications for non-Federal offices. Notably, while many State laws prohibited women from voting prior to the 19th Amendment in 1920, the Constitution governed qualifications for Federal elections and women could not be barred from running for Federal office. Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated for President by the National Equal Rights Party in 1884 and gained ballot access in 6 States and received 4,149 recorded votes. Lockwood was the first woman to officially appear on the ballot. Note: Victoria Woodhull was nominated in 1872 but did not gain ballot access as she was only 34 years of age. What the Constitution says is not defined by what States may choose to do relative to matters under State purview. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-22   15:41:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: nolu chan (#16) "The Second Amendment ... said "the people" and it did not exclude anyone from "the people" as you claim. Article I, Section 2 of this "organic law" reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and ..." Aren't children excluded from "the people" in Article I, Section 2? Women? Slaves? Foreigners? Non-freeholders? Yet you claim no one is excluded from "the people" in the second amendment. So you're saying "the people" means different things? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   17:11:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: misterwhite (#18) Article I, Section 2 of this "organic law" reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and ..." Aren't children excluded from "the people" in Article I, Section 2? Women? Slaves? Foreigners? Non-freeholders? Yet you claim no one is excluded from "the people" in the second amendment. You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights. In some states, convicted felons cannot vote, in others they can. State regulation of voting rights does not define citizenship. The people of the nation are defined by the Federal government. The people of the nation are it's citizens. The Constitution was silent on voting rights until the 15th and 19th amendments. The people, the citizens, decided who would be allowed to vote. Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   13:51:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: nolu chan (#21) "You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights." Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. Sure, there were some exceptions, but 99.9% of the voters were rich, white men, so that's what I used. Not every citizen was allowed to vote. Not even today. "Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America." I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Not all citizens can vote, even today, and back in 1789 they were only the rich white male citizens. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:10:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: misterwhite (#23) Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Think again. That idea is absolute blithering nonsense. The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. As the following official record shows, about half of the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreign born, aliens, had declared their intention to become citizens but had not yet become citizens. Under Wisconsin law they enjoyed the right to vote and all other privileges of citizens. But they were not citizens of the United States. According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States. http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cache/w/a/r/waro0123/00381.tif100.gif OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:31:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: nolu chan (#27) (Edited) "According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States." Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. The bottom line is that "the people" were not all persons or even all citizens. They were a select group who were allowed to vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   17:10:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: misterwhite (#31) "According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States." Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States? No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States. That's a Federal matter. Of course, one could be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State. If "voters" and "the people," are synonymous, and some States permitted aliens to be voters, alien voters would be among "the people" of the United States. Alternatively, if these voters were not among "the people" of the United States, then "voters" cannot be synonymous with "the people." nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   18:15:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: nolu chan (#33) "No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States." Correct. "Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States?" That's correct. Wisconsin let those "aliens" vote because they were going to become citizens soon thereafter. So Wisconsin made an exception. But once again, you're citing exceptions to the rule then making some generalization. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   14:36:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#35) you're citing exceptions You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   17:17:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: nolu chan (#37) "Your fantasy remains without merit." Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   19:35:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: misterwhite (#39) Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously insisted. Deal with it. I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. [...] There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:53:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#40) "I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. "It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution." The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You cited #1, 2, and 3. You left off 4, 5, and 6. Why? Oh, I see why. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such a state women have no right to vote. So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   20:26:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: misterwhite (#42) Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. [...] So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? No, and please stop being deliberately obtuse. I have no idea why you keep citing 1792. The Constitutional government took effect when George Washington was inaugurated in March 1789 and a new union of eleven states came into being. Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote. That was a power held by the States prior to the Constitution and not delegated to the Federal government. The Federal government has been delegated the authority to stop discrimination on the basis of race or sex, and to require State due process of law. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. [...] The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Still, to this day, the Constitution does not grant any right to vote for delegates to the Electoral College for President. See Bush v. Gore (2000) The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex. See Pennsylvania constitution of 1776: VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or be elected into office. Massachusetts constitution of 1780: ART. IX. All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments. New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1792 (amending Constitution of 1784) Art. 7. The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. Art. 11. All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications has equal right to elect and be elected into office. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   21:47:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: nolu chan (#43) "I have no idea why you keep citing 1792." That will become apparent when we get over this issue first. "Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote." We agree. Stop bringing it up. "Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex." Today. But not back in 1792. Why are you citing all this irrelevant crap? Article I, Section 2 reads that "the people" vote. According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. You still disagree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:32:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#44) According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. Complete unsupported nonsense. http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/ American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776)) [...] Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.)) [...] Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111)) 60 U.S. 575-576 The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows: "The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected. On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the Page 60 U. S. 576 privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States. Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship? That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but, in at least five of the States, they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   15:49:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: nolu chan (#46) In one state. And not all women. And there were prerequisites. If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:31:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: misterwhite (#48) If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? For possible penetration of what I actually said: 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.... The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that no right of suffrage is conferred by being a citizen of the United States, per the Constitution of the United States. Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey. The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 13th Amendment was needed to prohibit slavery which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 15th Amendment was needed to prohibit race discrimination which was not prohibited by the original Constitution. The 26th Amendment holds, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." Minors under the age of 18 years are citizens. Those from 18 to 21 were citizens before the 26th Amendment. All of those citizens were of the people of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:25:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: nolu chan (#50) "Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey." Some did. "The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution." The 19th protected the right of women to vote. Prior to that, they couldn't vote in all the states. Are you saying women could vote in all the states in 1792? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:29:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: misterwhite (#54) The 19th protected the right of women to vote. More nonsense. Neither women, nor men, had a right to vote. Our rights are not granted to us by State governments. The 19th Amendment does not protect a right. It prohibits the States from discriminating on the basis of sex in laws passed that determine who is a qualified voter. The State government can equally deny men and women the "right" to vote in a presidential election. They can choose to have the legislature select the delegates to the Electoral College. Alternatively, the State legislature could appoint the Statehouse janitor to select the delegates. The State Legislature has plenary authority for that election. What law they pass cannot say the men can vote but not women or that Whites can vote but not Blacks. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:59:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: nolu chan (#56) "Our rights are not granted to us by State governments." Correct. But they are protected by state governments. Which was what I said. And, prior to the 19th amendment, the right to vote was not protected for women. Meaning that those who voted in 1792 -- "the people" -- did not include women in all the states. Do you agree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:20:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: misterwhite (#59) Meaning that those who voted in 1792 -- "the people" -- did not include women in all the states. Do you agree? No. This remains unmitigated crap. The people of the United States are its citizens. The Court stated in Huber v. Reily, "Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away." Individual states decide meets, or fails to meet, the qualifications to be a voter in each state. Individual states do not decide who meets, or fails to meet, the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States. If you are a natural born citizen, you are one of the people of the United States. If you are naturalized, you are one of the people of the United States. By the Constitution, the people delegated to the Federal government the power to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. It is a uniform rule, not fifty different rules, which determines naturalization. U.S. Supreme Court Wesberry V. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, 27 based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [376 U.S. 1, 13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 28 It provided on the one hand that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States" and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch the people, ought to be represented; in the other, the States." 29 The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 376 U.S. 17-18, Opinion of the Court It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. 376 U.S. 1, 25-26 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) In any event, the very sentence of Art. I, 2, on which the Court exclusively relies confers the right to vote for Representatives only on those whom the State has found qualified to vote for members of "the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Supra, p. 22. So far as Article I is concerned, it is within the State's power to confer that right only on persons of wealth or of a particular sex or, if the State chose, living in specified areas of the State. 7 Were Georgia to find the residents of the [376 U.S. 1, 26] Fifth District unqualified to vote for Representatives to the State House of Representatives, they could not vote for Representatives to Congress, according to the express words of Art. I, 2. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? The truth is that it does not. 376 U.S. 27 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) Representatives were to be apportioned among the States on the basis of free population plus three-fifths of the slave population. Since no slave voted, the inclusion of three-fifths of their number in the basis of apportionment gave the favored States representation far in excess of their voting population. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, 27 based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [376 U.S. 1, 13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 28 It provided on the one hand that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States" and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch the people, ought to be represented; in the other, the States." 29 The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 376 U.S. 17-18, Opinion of the Court It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. 376 U.S. 1, 25-26 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) In any event, the very sentence of Art. I, 2, on which the Court exclusively relies confers the right to vote for Representatives only on those whom the State has found qualified to vote for members of "the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Supra, p. 22. So far as Article I is concerned, it is within the State's power to confer that right only on persons of wealth or of a particular sex or, if the State chose, living in specified areas of the State. 7 Were Georgia to find the residents of the [376 U.S. 1, 26] Fifth District unqualified to vote for Representatives to the State House of Representatives, they could not vote for Representatives to Congress, according to the express words of Art. I, 2. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? The truth is that it does not. 376 U.S. 27 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) It seems to me that we ought to pause but a moment upon the suggestion, that, in the enforcement of a law such as we have now before us for consideration, intended to secure an election of members of the House of Representatives by the giving of all legal votes and by the giving of none that are frandulent, the Government of the United States has no interest. "The Government of the United States" - what is that? It may be conceded to be an artificial thing, which men call "the Government," and which is sometimes looked upon as the source as well as the exhibition of power, and not capable of interest more than it is of thought or feeling. But, the Government of the United States, in the true sense, is the people of the United States, one and all, throughout the length and breadth of the land. And the people of the United States, here and everywhere, have not only an interest, but an interest that is vital, in the preservation of their institutions and in the preservation of all that is pure~ just and honest in the popular vote, on which, for their safety and security, their institutions and their Government rest. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 57-58. Undoubtedly a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote, and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualification cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens. So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union, foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 61. Section 2. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." Section 4, subdivision 1. "The times, places, aud manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators." Section 5, subdivision 1. "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." Section 8, last subdivision. "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Does the Act in question infringe the provision of the Constitution which I have read, which provides that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature? It is argued with great ingenuity and ability, that the Act in question infringes that clause of the Constitution, because it seeks to establish a test of qualification -- seeks to affirm the evidence of qualification -- and, by so doing, ex vi termini, imposes qualification itself. We apprehend that that argument rests upon no solid basis. The Act in question neither professes, nor, by any implication, can it, we think, be construed to affect the qualification of any elector anywhere. It imposes no duty to register. It prohibits no registration that is required in the State in which the elector seeks to exercise his franchise. It touches no qualification of the elector in any other respect. It leaves the power of the State to prescribe the qualifications of electors for the most numerous. branch of the State Legislature, in the largest and fullest extent, untouched and unaffected. It says, and only says, that, when the qualification of registration is imposed by the State law, (leaving the expediency or wisdom of such a law entirely to the judgmeut of the State), it shall be an offense against the laws of the United States to contribute, by fraud and violation of the State registry laws, to the seuding of a representative to the Congress of the United States who is not clothed with the authority which a true expression of the popular will would give; and that is all. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) It is not to be doubted, that the power to regulate suffrage in a state, and to determine who shall and who shall not be a voter, belongs exclusively to the state itself; the constitution of the United States confers no authority upon congress, to prescribe the qualifications of electors, within the several states that compose the federal union. Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away. If, therefore, the act now under consideration is, in truth, an attempt to regulate the right of suffrage in the state, or to prescribe the conditions upon which that right may be exercised, it must be held unwarranted by the constitution. In the exercise of its admitted powers, congress may doubtless deprive an individual of the opportunity to enjoy a right that belongs to him as a citizen of a state, even the right of suftrage; but this is a different thing from taking away or impairing the right itself. Under the laws of the federal government, a voter may be sent abroad in the military service of the country, and thus deprived of the privilege of exercising his right; or a voter may be imprisoned for a crime against the United States; but it is a perversion of language, to call this impairing his right of suffrage. Huber v Reilly, 53 Penn. St. Reports 112 (1866) nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-02   1:23:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: nolu chan (#63) "The people of the United States are its citizens" Article I, Section 2 says "the people" are the voters. In 1792 women didn't vote. How could they belong to "the people"? misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-03   10:22:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: misterwhite (#66) Article I, Section 2 says "the people" are the voters. Article 1, Section 2 only says that in your spider infested mind. You are free to live within your vivid imagination. In 1792 women didn't vote. How could they belong to "the people"? Please provide your proof that women did not vote in 1792? U.S. Supreme Court Wesberry V. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   12:21:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: nolu chan (#70) "Article 1, Section 2 only says that in your spider infested mind." Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ... NOTE: It does not say "chosen every second year by all persons of the several states ..." Nor does it say "chosen every second year by the citizens of the several states ..." The Founders could have written that, but they chose not to. They wrote "the people" -- citizens with full rights. And that did NOT include women and children. Meaning, in 1792, "the people" did not include all citizens. Agreed? misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-03   15:00:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: misterwhite (#71) Meaning, in 1792, "the people" did not include all citizens. Agreed? I agree that you exhibit a profound grasp of the absurd, and the ability to repeat it endlessly. Do you get this crap from some Jedi? Since there has been a United States, and there have been a people of the United States, the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S of the United States have been the people of the United States. That would be before, during, and at all times since 1792. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag14_user.html#art1_sec2 [Footnotes omitted] CRS Annotated Constitution ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Section 2. Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING A major innovation in constitutional law in recent years has been the development of a requirement that election districts in each State be so structured that each elected representative should represent substantially equal populations. While this requirement has generally been gleaned from the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court held that “construed in its historical context, the command of Art. 1, Sec. 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” James Madison to Edward Everett Montpelier, August 28, 1830. DEAR SIR, — [EXTRACT] From these it will be seen, that the characteristic peculiarities of the Constitution are, 1, the mode of its formation; 2, the division of the supreme powers of government between the states in their united capacity, and the states in their individual capacities. 1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions. Constitution, Article VII The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. The Constitution formed a union of STATES which ratified it. States are political communities comprised of the people of the state. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-03   18:31:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: nolu chan (#73) "Since there has been a United States, and there have been a people of the United States, the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S of the United States have been the people of the United States." Not "people". Not "a people". Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution refer to "people" or "a people". Always "the people". You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. misterwhite  posted on  2014-12-04   16:58:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: misterwhite (#75) Not "people". Not "a people". Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution refer to "people" or "a people". Always "the people". You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you are talking about. Provide a source to support your wingnut nonsense. The following addresses The Preamble and The People. Abel Upshur, A Brief Enquiry, 1840 A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government: Being a Review of Judge Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Abel Upshur, Petersburg, Va, 1840. [50] ... The opinion, that the constitution was formed by “the people of the United States,” as contradistinguished from the people of the several states, that is, as contradistinguished from the states as such, is founded exclusively on the particular terms of the preamble. The language is, “We, the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” “The people do ordain and establish, not contract and stipulate with each other. The people of the United States, not the distinct people of a particular state, with the people of the other states.” In thus relying on the language of the preamble, the author rejects the lights of history altogether. I will endeavor in the first place to meet him on his own ground. It is an admitted rule, that the preamble of a statute may be resorted to in the construction of it; and it may, of course, be used to the same extent in the construction of a constitution, which is a supreme Law. But the only purpose for which it can be used is to aid in the discovery of the true object and intention of the law, where these [51] would otherwise be doubtful. The preamble can, in no case, be al· lowed to contradict the law, or to vary the meaning of its plain language. Still less can it be used to change the true character of the law-making power. If the preamble of the Constitution had declared that it was made by the people of France or England, it might, indeed, have been received as evidence of that fact, in the absence of all proof to the contrary; but surely it would not be so received against the plain testimony of the instrument itself, and the authentic history of the transaction. If the convention which formed the Constitution was not, in point of fact, a convention of the people of the United States, it had no right to give itself that title; nor had it any right to act in that character, if it was appointed by a different power. And if the Constitution, when formed, was adopted by the several states, acting through their separate conventions, it is historically untrue that it was adopted by the aggregate people of the United States. The preamble, therefore, is of no sort of value in settling this question; and it is matter of just surprise that it should be so often referred to, and so pertinaciously relied on, for that purpose. History alone can settle all difficulties upon this subject. The history of the preamble itself ought to have convinced our author, that the inference which he draws from it could not be allowed. On the 6th of August, 1787, the committee appointed for that purpose reported the first draft of a constitution. The preamble was in these words: “We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution, for the government of ourselves and our posterity:” (1 Elliott’s Debates, 255.) On the very next day this preamble was unanimously adopted; and the reader will at once perceive, that it carefully preserves the distinct sovereignty of the states, and discountenances all idea of consolidation. (Ib. 263.) The draft of the constitution thus submitted was discussed, and various alterations and amendments adopted, (but without any change in the preamble,) until the 8th of September, 1787, when the following resolution was passed: “It was moved and seconded to appoint a committee of five, to revise the style of, and arrange the articles agreed to, by the house; which passed in the affirmative.” (Ib. 324.) It is manifest that this committee had no power to change the meaning of any thing which had been adopted, but were authorized merely to “revise the style,” and arrange the matter in proper order. On the 12th of the same [52] month they made their report. The preamble, as they reported it, is in the following words: “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” (Ib. 326.) It does not appear that any attempt was made to change this phraseology in any material point, or to reinstate the original. The presumption is, therefore, that the two were considered as substantially the same, particularly as the committee had no authority to make any change, except in the style. The difference in the mere phraseology of the two was certainly not overlooked; for on the 13th September, 1787, “it was moved and seconded to proceed to the comparing of the report from the committee of revision, with the articles which were agreed to by the house, and to them referred for arrangement; which passed in the affirmative. And the same was read by paragraphs, compared, and, in some places, corrected and amended.” (Ib. 338.) In what particulars these corrections and amendments were made, we are not very distinctly informed. The only change which was made in the preamble was by striking out the word “to,” before the words “establish justice;” and the probability is, that no other change was made in any of the articles, except such as would make “the report of the committee of revision” “correspond with the articles agreed to by the house.” The inference, therefore, is irresistible, that the convention considered the preamble reported by the committee of revision, as substantially corresponding with the original draft, as unanimously “agreed to by the house.” There is, however, another and a perfectly conclusive reason for the change of phraseology, from the states by name, to the more general expression “the United States;” and this, too, without supposing that it was intended thereby to convey a different idea as to the parties to the constitution. The revised draft contained a proviso, that the constitution should go into operation when adopted and ratified by nine states. It was, of course, uncertain whether more than nine would adopt it, or not; and if they should not, it would be altogether improper to name them as parties to that instrument. As to one of them, Rhode Island, she was not even represented in the convention, and, consequently, the others had no sort of right to insert her as a party. Hence it became necessary to adopt a form of expression which would apply to those who should ratify the constitution, and [53] not to those who should refuse to do so. The expression actually adopted answers that purpose fully. It means simply, “We, the people of those states who have united for that purpose, do ordain,” &c. This construction corresponds with the historical fact, and reconciles the language employed with the circumstances of the case. Indeed, similar language was not unusual, through the whole course of the revolution. “The people of his majesty’s colonies,” “the people of the united colonies,” “the people of the United States,” are forms of expression which frequently occur, without intending to convey any other idea than that of the people of the several colonies or states. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-04   18:12:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 77.         There are no replies to Comment # 77. End Trace Mode for Comment # 77. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com