THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Look, folks. Yesterday on the program I mentioned the fact that there is no Constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. There just isn't. But Webguy and Cristina forwarded me dozens of emails whining, "Boortz is wrong! I can't believe he wants to deny me my precious rights! There was no need for him to yell at callers!"

If you missed it, then tune into the Information Overload Hour today for Boortz Re-Call. Your station doesn't carry the Information Overload Hour? That's a shame. Call them and tell them you want it. In the meantime, stream it online. Decide whether or not I was mean. But here's an email to show you what I'm dealing with here:

Your self-aggrandizement appalls me. I understand how you are on the radio as you can sell your misstatements to your listeners and they must be multitude. In the name of God, how can you spew your these blatant misstatements to the public and keep a conscience. Where are your values, Mr. Boortz? Take your attack on the right to vote.

Where do you get off saying that an individual, no matter what their status, does not have the right to vote. Once you begin to define a person as to their right to vote, you slide down that slippery slope to discrimination. I'm in jail and I should not be allowed to vote? GET REAL NEAL.

I choose one day a year to listen to your vitriol and today is the day. You call yourself a Libertarian yet your attacks are all directed toward the Democrats.

I have been a Georgia resident since 1971, when I returned from military service overseas (VN). I find you a disgrace to the values of our country. Respectfully,

Now first of all .. this "I chose one day a year" nonsense is BS and Mr. David knows it's BS. Is he really ignorant enough to believe that anyone reading this letter buys that stuff? "Let's see, oh yeah. Today is October 7th. That's the day I listen to Neal Boortz ever year." This writer, you see, is so ticked off at me that the last thing he wants me to believe is that he actually listens to my show ... every day. This is just a variant on the old "I just happened to be tuning across the dial today and caught your show for a few minutes" thing. Come on folks. Grow up. We know what the truth is, so stop this childish nonsense.

This letter writer makes another mistake. He constantly refers to "the right to vote." Those are not the words I use.

I fully recognize that some states, mine included, grant a right to vote in state and local elections in their state constitutions.

Now ... for those of you who just don't listen until someone screams at you, we'll scream:

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that there is no constitutional right to vote in a presidential election.

Now you can argue, scream, cite sections of the Constitution, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want ... but that is the law ... and no amount of protest or childish emails on your part is going to change it. I am not to blame for your failed education.

The point here is that once we all recognize that the right to vote in a presidential election doesn't exist, we can set about getting some of the parasites and idiots off the voting rolls. We can end this running off to drug rehab centers, homeless shelters and prisons to register voters. You don't let the inmates run the asylum.

How about a condition for receiving welfare is a suspension of your right to vote?

OK by me but what about the professor who gets $3 million to study the mating habits of gnats, and pays himself a fee from that? Or the corporation that gets a subsidy? Or the taxpayer whose kids get student loans for college?

I agree with the principal, but the interconnectedness we all have with government makes it tough to identify who are the net contributors and who are the leaches.

The way to solve that is to get government out of the business of transferring wealth in the first place. We are a long way from getting that, and we are even further away from limiting the vote to productive citizens. Even a large majority of the GOP would probably not go along with that, not at first. It would take a little education of the populace, and good luck getting the mob to give up the vote.

There is no right - constitutional or otherwise - to vote in any election. Your vote is your power and it is force - It isn't a right. I find it mildly amusing that the nineteenth amendment mentions the "right to vote". It purports to grant that which was never delegated or defined in the first place.

Voting is an individual power. It can neither be delegated to, nor controlled by government. You can cast a ballot on election day or you can vote with your feet and move your body somewhere more to your liking. Conversely, if you're permitted no say or movement by law, you can vote by protesting your case and hope for relief or you can vote by taking up arms and attempting to overthrow your opressor(s).

Your vote = Your power = Your ability to exercise force

And yes, the power of the vote was originally only exercised by landowners. In the early 19th century, it was widely understood that voting was force and generally agreed upon that it should be limited as much as possible. Therefore, it was restricted to those with the largest stake in government - landowners. It should also be said that in some places this included women - long before Suzy B. did her thing - and in at least four different states, free black men who owned land were permitted the power. This wasn't good enough later on down the road so steps were taken in protest (and some violence) that extended the franchise to all those over the age of eighteen.

Now even if you're too stupid to tie your shoes, you're allowed to exercise force over others so long as you've been alive eighteen years - sweet, right?

The Right to VOTE

Most Americans believe that the "legal right to vote" in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides explicitly for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.

Even though the "vote of the people" is perceived as supreme in our democracy - because voting rights are protective of all other rights - Justice Scalia in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded Al Gore's lawyers that there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution. The Supreme Court majority concluded: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000))

Voting in the United States is based on the constitutional principle of states' rights. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a "state right." Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.

What's the difference between a citizenship right and a state right? The First Amendment contains individual citizenship rights that go with you from state to state (that is, they are the same wherever you are in the U.S.); and they are protected and enforced by the federal government - theoretically you have equal protection under the law by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Therefore, as a result of the First Amendment, every American citizen has an individual right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and religious freedom (or to choose no religion at all), regardless of which state you are in - individual rights that are protected by the federal government. A state right is NOT an American citizenship right (that is, not protected by the federal government), but a right defined and protected by each state - and limited to that state. ======================================

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. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''') (quoting

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.

(Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000))

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.