Why is the 2nd amendment the ONLY Constitutional RIGHT you need a permit to exercise?
Maj Toure @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on May 21, 2018
[It’s a rhetorical question. I’m not going to bother answering it.
That doesn’t mean I’m not going to be asking it a bunch.—Joe]
If you think about it a little more, every right comes with a price, usually paid directly to some government entity. The second amendment may be among the most openly attacked, but they’re all targets. We could go down the list, of every constitutional right, and find fees, taxes, licensing, registration or reporting requirements, or simple outright violations, for each and every one.
Similarly, every one of the Ten Commandments is under assault, and by the same confederacy.
I have a real problem with voter registration. I’m being honest here. I don’t believe in gun owner registration, so I don’t believe in voter registration. A requirement that I register my personal information with the government prior to voting turns it into a privilege, not a right. There are high tech and low tech ways to verify one vote per person, and if we controlled our borders like a responsible nation we wouldn’t have the problem of illegal aliens voting en masse (our current voter registration system doesn’t seem to do a great job of preventing illegals from voting anyway).
I wasn’t aware voting was a constitutionally protected right like gun ownership. Can you point that out to me?
That’s an interesting point, actually.
The Constitution says that anyone eligible to vote for “the most numerous branch of the state legislature” may vote in Congressional elections. But what that set of voters is, for any given state, is largely undefined. Voting for president is even less defined: it says that electors are appointed by each state “in such manner as the Legislature may direct” — it doesn’t even need to include all those eligible to vote for the state legislature, apparently.
Some of the amendments say that race, sex, age (if at least 18), failure to pay any tax, or “previous condition of servitude” may not be grounds for denying the vote. But, for example, there appears to be no Constitutional prohibition against property tests for voting. Nor literacy tests, interestingly enough.
Conversely, there isn’t anything that says states aren’t allowed to make voting wide open. As far as I can tell, if CA said that anyone who walks in the door of a polling place may vote and such a vote is valid, no one has any standing to object. They could give the vote to illegal aliens, for example (or legal ones). I expect if such a blatant act were done explicitly, a Constitutional amendment would quickly result, but until that happens I see no impediments.
I was really surprised to learn that the Constitution doesn’t direct citizens to vote for President. My take away from this is that the office of the presidency has now become something that it was never intended to be. I don’t think that’s a good thing.
You’re not alone on this. I thought I saw some article by Tam outlining something similar
Woa, woa, Joe. Same team. What I’m looking at are the 15th 19th, and 26th amendments which make reference to a right of a citizen to vote, and indicate that the government can’t infringe on that right based on certain criteria. I think there’s also a good case to be made for a 9th amendment right of citizens to vote.
I apply my same philosophy to the right to vote as I do to firearms: I shouldn’t have to register or jump through hoops to exercise a right. I recognize that this presents a problem since so many illegal immigrants may be able to illegally vote, but the best way to resolve this IMO is for our country to responsibly control our borders.
Didn’t mean to come across as hostile. Sorry about that. I was (and am) short on time to make a more nuanced response. pkoning already made a better response than I would have that covers the material I was thinking of.
Sorry. Maybe I’ve been reading too much Twitter. Everyone on there is an instant dick. Some “national conversation”.
Requiring you to “register” doesn’t “turn it (voting) into a privilege” — voting is at all times and in all places a privilege. The “right to keep and bear arms” is however a right at all times and places.
That a constitution or law specifies that certain things may not be used as a criteria for determination of eligibility for the privilege of voting does not make voting a right.
I guess what I’m looking at in those amendments is that the word “right” is used to describe a citizens right to vote. If we start waffling on the meaning of the word “right” in those amendments, then in my opinion we cheapen the usage of the same word in the 2nd Amendment. We allow room for people to equivocate that the 2A right to arms is only a privilege afforded to the national guard, etc.
Honestly I’m really starting to consider lately what else may be considered a right under the 9th Amendment. I swear I’m not trolling here. I just want to make sure my own views are as consistent and respecting of liberty as I can possibly be.
For example, could driving on the public right of way be considered a right which is retained by the people but not enumerated in the Constitution? Surely traveling about for various reasons a necessity of life which transcends the centuries. Just because we have cars now, does that mean our right to travel to the store or a job is any less important than when this could only be accomplished by horse?
Yes, clearly traveling is a civil right under the 9th Amendment. But by the same reasoning, voting is not; traditionally, voting was limited to a small fraction of the population. It’s only in recent times that it has been widened to include most adults. In some countries considered democracies it still isn’t. As I recall, one of the Swiss cantons still limits the vote to males (for canton votes, not federal ones). If that is no longer true, the change happened no more than 20 years ago.
The 4th Amendment wasn’t meant to protect criminals.
If you have some extraordinary reason why you need to keep your papers and things from government view, you’re going to need a concealed documents permit.
See how silly that sounds?
The dims are slowly laying the ground work to require licensing of reporters, and news organizations to prevent dissemination of “Fake News.” Of course who gets a license, and what constitutes “Fake News” will be up to a government bureaucrat, who would never let politics or bribery influence his/her/xer/etc, decision (yeah, right).
In the former Soviet Union there were two approved (licensed) press services, the party run “Pravda (Truth)” and the state run “Izvsetia (News),” Old joke from that time: “Pravda” contains no “Izvestia” and “Izvestia” contains no “Pravda.”
Malaysia recently passed a law prohibiting “fake news” and instituting penalties for reporters who generate what is judged to be fake news.
Something similar (a bit narrower) was done a few months earlier in Poland.
We already have the FCC, 501 C3 registration, rally permits, “free speech” zones, and “hate speech” laws, to name but a few, that isn’t event touching on the restrictions on advertising. Then there are the unwritten “laws” that mean you’ll be harassed and impugned, or possibly sued, become the subject of IRS targeting, etc., if you don’t fall into certain PC behavior, or gender, race, etc.
Once you realize that this is a war it becomes much easier to understand.
Maj Toure has an advantage in that he’s black and so he’s slightly harder for the Confederates to attack openly. He has a great message too, and I hope he keeps it going. It would be better for him if he were a black, lesbian, Muslim woman with a disability. Then he d be almost untouchable as far as open criticism goes. Then again that doesn’t mean the Confederates couldn’t simply have him done away with like they did to MLK Jr. or set him up for a “MEE TOO” case of some kind.
Feinstein already stated she does not believe freedom of the press applies to bloggers or – as I think she put it – people in their parents basements.
“V Izvesti ne pravda, v Pravda ne izvesti” (“In News there is no truth, and in Truth there is no news”) — quoted on According to Hoyt
When the subject of CCW arises, I explain that I have the govenment’s permission to exercise that right, and watch for some reaction.
I like that.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Jay Hafemeister | The View From North Central Idaho