Voter ID vs Carry ID

[texasprowler]

The ORIGINAL constitution, the first one in history anywhere. The commonwealth of Connecticut.

I'm told it played a significant role in drafting the 1776 constitution and was kind of "the law of the land" for that 140 year span. Just wondering if you could expand on that connection.

[jshuberg]

Sorry man, I've got nuthin' to contribute there. I wasn't even aware that it existed, but it sounds like something that would be interesting to look into when it's -30 below and I'm all snowed in and hibernating. Thanks for the heads up.

[texasprowler]

"No good understanding of American government today is possible without a knowledge of its colonial roots. A most significant contribution to U. S. constitutional history was made by Connecticut, 1639-1789. In the study of American history, teachers often present a quick overview of the colonial period. This hasty treatment of the colonies may be due to a lack of time, or insufficient preparation in that particular area of study, or a number of other factors."

EDIT to add: just looking for the source of the presumption that land ownership is a right, thus is voting. I'm still left with the "biggest gun" theory.

[jshuberg]

Ownership of property is a right. Because of the taxation of that property, suffrage is an extension of property rights.

There is no right to own land.

[Holland&Holland]

The ORIGINAL constitution, the first one in history anywhere. The commonwealth of Connecticut.

I'm told it played a significant role in drafting the 1776 constitution and was kind of "the law of the land" for that 140 year span. Just wondering if you could expand on that connection.

1) You might want to check that statement as the word "constitution" dates prior to the discovery of the new world so I doubt that it was the first one in history anywhere otherwise why have the word?

2) You were told or you were told that someone read cause I am pretty certain there is no currently living from 1776.

Just a couple points to keep people honest. Enjoying your debat though, carry on.

[texasprowler]

Before 1639, the term "constitution" was reserved for the morning duties. I was told that by something I was reading at the time.

[Holland&Holland]

Before 1639, the term "constitution" was reserved for the morning duties. I was told that by something I was reading at the time.

Check again. Per Webster's it dates to the 14th century and at that time meant an ordenance or law. If you are going to state things as fact, please back them up with source better than "something I was reading at the time".

[texasprowler]

It was meant to be humor.
Cultural disparity.

[texasprowler]

The legit answer to your question is that I don't know. Anything I read about the Fundamental Orders or Original constitution of Connecticut refers to it as being the first written constitution and was the basis of the Federal version.

'I was told' is a southern thing, a book can't speak. I also don't know anything to be a fact unless I see it with my own eyes. Until then, it is just my understanding, which can be quite colorful.

I challenged jshuberg here, because his argument seems fluid, I can't find his source of the grantor of rights. On one turn he points to the founders or their sources to proclaim something to be a right, then dismisses their opinion stating that something is a right irregardless.

So ferric021 seems to have it pinpointed by saying that a right is whatever an individual deems it to be, including jshuberg, whom I admire for his vast wealth of historical knowledge, though sometimes I think he is full of 'constitution'.

If you, or anyone else has an opinion about what gives us a right, I'd be glad to hear it.

[ferric021]

So ferric021 seems to have it pinpointed by saying that a right is whatever an individual deems it to be

Just to clarify, that is my position on what jshuberg's definition of a right truly is, but I disagree with this definition. To me this seems like a trivial definition which, in the end, doesn't mean anything in terms of what we as citizens of the United States should expect from our right to bear arms in comparison to what we should expect from our right to vote. To me, the only definition of a 'right' that matters is the legal definition as dictated by my governing body (the U.S. Government), whether explicitly or implicitly.

If there is something missing in the Constitution that I feel should be a right, this doesn't change the fact that it is not currently a right no matter how much I think it should be a right. At least until I get that definition changed by legal action and voting appropriately.

Whatever 'rights' my governing body decides to credit to my creator (or to my status as a human being) is up to my governing body to decide, but that does not change the fundamental nature of what constitutes as a 'right.'

[ferric021]

And furthermore, any rhetoric from Jesse Jackson, or the NRA, or the United Nations, that describes what is or is not a 'human right' or 'god-given right' is just that, rhetoric. It may convince me that my government should recognize this as a right, but it does not determine what is or is not a right, until I change that in the laws that govern me.

In this sense, I believe that the right to vote is more explicitly spelt out than the generic right to self defense.

[jshuberg]

You are absolutely entitled to any opinion you want on where rights come from, what rights are, to whom they are afforded, etc. These exact same questions and issues were discussed and debated by the founding fathers as they established the US government. The difference is, you're not creating the United States government. The opinions of the founders, as evidenced in the transcripts of congress and the constitutional convention, as well as related documents like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, have the force of law behind them.

Bottom line, there simply is no federally recognized right to vote in the US. Neither a fundamental right, nor a legal right. Neither explicit, nor implicit. This is evidenced in Gore v Bush that decided the 2000 Presidential election:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

In other words, the states may grant an individual the legal right to vote in a state election, which may then influence their members of the electoral college, but the Federal Government does not grant or recognize an individual right to vote. Who is able to vote is currently determined, and has always been determined by the individual states. Here in MN, our state constitution explicitly establishes voting as being an entitlement, not a right:

Section 1. Eligibility; place of voting; ineligible persons.

Every person 18 years of age or more who has been a citizen of the United States for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. The place of voting by one otherwise qualified who has changed his residence within 30 days preceding the election shall be prescribed by law. The following persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state: A person not meeting the above requirements; a person who has been convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to civil rights; a person under guardianship, or a person who is insane or not mentally competent.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/constitution/

Again, you can disagree as much as you'd like, but I believe I've done at least a fair job at trying to dispel the popular myth that voting is a right, or that it's granted or recognized by the US Constitution, etc. It is in fact a privilege, or more specifically an entitlement that is granted by the state government. This puts voting in a completely different legal category than the right to free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, etc. which are federally recognized and constitutionally protected fundamental rights, and have been recognized to have been granted to us by the Creator.

I know this flies in the face of what most people have been told their entire life, but it's the truth. I encourage you to research it yourself if you find this an interesting topic.

[ferric021]

Now let's look at the 2nd amendment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

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.

According to the amendment, 'the people' have the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't believe anywhere in the US Constitution does it say 'anyone occupying US soil' has the right to keep and bear arms. Not only that, but as far as I understand there are no clauses which state how to define 'the people' in this sense or exactly which 'arms' can they bear, at which point I believe the 10th amendment takes over and gives the states the right to define 'the people' who have the right to keep and bear which 'arms' correct? Therefore it seems reasonable that according to the US Constitution the States have the right to determine for themselves whether or not the people are defined by civilians with state-issued IDs and background checks and permits to keep and bear arms. Right?

So with this said, and knowing that I believe it is perfectly reasonable for the State of Minnesota to decide whether or not photo IDs should be required for either the right to vote or the right to carry a firearm as per the US Constition, how do you think these two ideas compare?

I agree entirely with you that it is up to the States to decide who can and cannot vote, that is not my argument. My argument is that the difference between a 'legal right' versus a 'legal entitlement' is nomenclature and philosophy. What's important is what the documentation states and what it does not. And following my logic described in my quote above from my first post, it appears the states have the right to decide both who can bear arms and who can vote. That is the result of my study and nothing here about what the founding fathers believed who grants what rights changes whats written there.

Also, your quote on the Gore v Bush decision very clearly 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." This says in no uncertain terms that whatever the state decides is indeed recognized by the Federal Government, including any state that decides to implement a voting system to appoint members of the Electoral College. Minnesota has indeed chosen a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College, therefore the Federal Government recognizes this process as the legal right to choose our representatives, as per the 17th and other amendments. Unless there's some law that states the 17th Amendment is less important than the 2nd Amendment? Laws can and will always be added, revised, and repealed. Not even the US Constitution is not exempt from that (just ask the 18th Amendment). But the way its written now, I still don't see a difference between allowing states to implement carry permits that require a photo ID as well as a process for choosing federal representation that requires a photo ID.

However, I do indeed see a personal choice distinction based on your opinion of the originator of rights that does indeed justify your opinion in the difference between the the requirement of a photo ID for these two actions. And when I think about it, that is probably what I really should have been asking in the first place. So I do apologize that I got caught up in the legality of rights, rather than accepting your personal opinion that the right to bear arms in self defense is a different beast than the right to vote based on your personal beliefs. Since in the end these personal beliefs are really what is supposed to drive the law (in theory) in our system of government. Thank you for the discussion, and I don't mind hearing further what you or other people have to say if they wish to chime in.

[texasprowler]

If you examine a primitive tribal system, the group may or may not let you share in the selection of a leader. Nothing you can do about it.

But if they invade your cave space, poke you with a stick, put you in a cage, or try to stop you from speaking, you will INSTINCTively fight for the right, bare teeth, or take up arms for self defense.

That is why land ownership is a right, only as long as the occupant is prepared and capable of defending the flag planted. They can take away the land, but the willingness/desire to get it back has been the source of conflict since cave days.

Rights, to me, are self-evident, just observe natural phenomena.

Voting can be nothing but a privilege, extended to a person by others, based on whatever criteria they so choose.