Neysa NevinsMar 18, 2024
Teri Kanefield

I have my weekend blog post ready.

You don’t have an affirmative Constitutional right to vote. (Did you know that?)

The right to vote was not (affirmatively) included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendments.

Here's why (and what I mean):

https://terikanefield.com/the-right-to-vote/

*

Once again, I ran out of time and didn't deal with the problem of that 500 error message. There are some plug ins I'm supposed to try.

If you get the message wait a few minutes and try again.

The Right to Vote - Teri Kanefield

First, some business. I have finished the series about misinformation and outrage in what I have been calling the MSNBC-CNN-Left-Leaning-Social-Media outrage ecosystem. Since last week, I linked the parts together, added a few sections, and revamped the conclusion. The series begins here. *  *  * And now, for this week’s topic: The Right to Vote […]

Teri Kanefield
Mar 16, 2024 at 8:35pmWeb
Show threadUlrikeMar 16, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield
💛

Have you seen Hank Green's video about believing misinformation from sources he agrees with? It seems like one you might appreciate.
https://youtu.be/W92bjv8fNTI?si=xP8aDbGfoLLwBzD4

I Believed These Four Lies

YouTube
Show threadDavid G. SmithMar 16, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield 🎉 Yay! I finally got the 500 error! 🥳

(…and yes, it clears upon trying again. 👍)

Now on to the actual good stuff… 🤗

Show threadmvarioMar 16, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield
Show threadScottMGSMar 16, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield Reading your post (thanks!) and this popped into my head: Gog and Magog...and Demagog.
Show threadKennethMar 18, 2024

@ScottMGS Oh Lord... Those Jack Chick comics...

@Teri_Kanefield

Show threadKarl AuerbachMar 16, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield One might consider that the right to vote is buried in the somewhat moribund "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" of the 14th Amendment.

At least Justice Douglas thought so in Oregon v Mitchell 400 US 112 (1970) pages 149-150 where he wrote:

The right to vote for national officers is a privilege and immunity of national citizenship.

Show threadCharles HeroldMar 16, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield Fascinating. So if every state decided who could vote, did the states decide in lockstep? Were there individual states that at least considered wider suffrage or no?
Show threadTeri KanefieldMar 16, 2024
@cherold You will have to just wait for the next installment :)
Show threadAnde JacobsonMar 17, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield @cherold: I think the answer is yes. There were a couple of states that allowed women to vote before the 19th Amendment was added, but they took it back along the way. I don't recall which ones though.
Show threadTeri KanefieldMar 18, 2024

@goodreedAJ @cherold

https://www.nps.gov/articles/voting-rights-in-nj-before-the-15th-and-19th.htm#:~:text=New%20Jersey%27s%20first%20constitution%20in,and%20women%20had%20voting%20rights.

New Jersey (maybe another but I can't remember off hand)

Did You Know: Women and African Americans Could Vote in NJ before the 15th and 19th Amendments? (U.S. National Park Service)

Show threadTeri KanefieldMar 18, 2024

@goodreedAJ @cherold

I won't be getting to it next week. I thought of something better for next weekend !

Show threadAnde JacobsonMar 18, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield @cherold: I thought maybe Missouri might be the other one.
Show threadAnde JacobsonMar 18, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield @cherold: Ooh, I can't wait!
Show threadKennethMar 18, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield Bated breath, etc. Constitutionally our states must be republics; the extent of the franchise is a related matter. (It's funny that one has to prove residency by utility bill; state citizenship vis-à-vis federal citizenship isn't so much as mentioned. Post Civil War nomenclature?)

@cherold

Show threadWilliam ConnerMar 16, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield I did not know about the lack of affirmative right to vote even though I have voted since 1968. Thanks for an excellent article.
Show threadBruceMar 16, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield

> You don’t have an affirmative Constitutional right to vote. (Did you know that?)

I both know that and I know that it needs to be remedied.

Show threadWheresWillowMar 17, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield first vote. 2020. .my state rep voted nullify. Vote Dem.
Show threadNicole ParsonsMar 17, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield

There is also no explicit affirmation of the right to privacy, the right to raise your own children, or to the commons like clean air or water.

These used to be assumed to be included in the unenumerated rights cited in the 9th Amendment.

Republicans are attacking the 9th Amendment as much as the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.

Show threadAnde JacobsonMar 17, 2024

@Teri_Kanefield: Quite a history on voting rights. Thank you for this. It makes it very clear how much of a privilege it is to be able to vote, and one that we cannot take for granted.

Loved the musical theater reference at the beginning as well! I've played that show more times than I can remember.

Show threadRobert WatkinsMar 17, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield It also says a lot that voting in the US is a privilege, and not a duty…
Show threadJoshua KadenMar 17, 2024
@Teri_Kanefield 🙂“The idea of conducting an election at Percycross without beer seemed to be absurd to every male and female Percycrossian. Of course the publicans would open their taps and then send in their bills for beer to the electioneering agents. There was a prevailing feeling that any interference with so ancient a practice was not only un-English, but unjust also;—that it was beyond the power of Parliament to enforce any law so abominable and unnatural.” Ralph the Heir by Trollope 1871
Show threadMartijn VosMar 18, 2024

Great article. It quotes a lot of very popular fallacies that I've often seen used by people not understanding that they're fallacies.

Take this one:

Another way of saying the same thing is: allowing non-propertied people to vote would be like two wolves and a lamb deciding on the dinner menu. There would be nothing to stop the wolves (those without property) from preying on the lamb.


The reality is that lambs outnumber wolves, but without voting rights, they're unable to depend themselves from the wolves, and that's how it's been throughout human history before universal suffrage. The rich prey on the poor. And they still do.

The real analogy is one wolf and two lambs voting what's for dinner, but only the wolf having the right to vote.

The drafters sought to mitigate the potential problem of demagogues and to limit a possible tyranny of the majority by setting up institutional checks and balances so that, should a demagogue come to power, his ability to wreak havoc would be (at least somewhat) limited. Similarly, they viewed dividing the power and creating checks, particularly the judicial branch, as a way to help prevent a tyranny of the majority.


And they did a very imperfect job at that. The whole idea that they could have gotten it right immediately is ridiculous, and they quite obviously failed. The fact that judges are political appointments already destroys the notion that the judiciary is truly independent. A demagogue has come to power and did wreak havoc, and might do so again.

And the real problem is not the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of the minority.

As far as they were concerned, universal voting rights were obviously out of the question. The enslavers who wrote the Constitution had no intention of giving up the institution of slavery.


That also shows how dishonest they were about wanting to protect the rights and the freedom of the poor. Their wealth depended on oppression.

But your conclusion from this is better than any I've seen before:

How would they win popular support if they put right there, in the Constitution itself for everyone to see, that the majority of Americans would have no voice and that “we the people” didn’t really mean “all the people”?


So the phrasing of the Constitution was really to disguise the fact that it was only meant to serve the rich. The poor were conned.

When the above was ratified, Senators were chosen by state legislators. The 17th Amendment changed that. Under the 17th Amendment, Senators are elected by the people.


I think this was actually a mistake. Because while they're elected by the people, the representation of those people is extremely unequal. Some senators represent 50 million people, others not even 1 million. Instead, the 17th amendment should have limited the power of the senate to only deciding which issues are state issues and which are federal issues, and not get a vote on the actual laws themselves, because the senate doesn't really represent the people.

Or they should have fixed the representation of the people in the senate.