Have you once heard some one say "That's unconstitutional!" or "That's my constitutional right!" It’s a phrase used quite often, but many a time misunderstood. There are many misconceptions among Americans and astonishingly, many basic fundamental “rights” that we so cherish as Americans are in actuality not guaranteed by our nations most important founding document. One such misconception is something that will surprise you. Many Americans believe that the government cannot prohibit its citizens from voting, but the truth is - if Americans read their Constitution, they would be shocked to see that in no where does it provide that Americans are forever entitled to the right to vote. With that arises the question – does America need a “Voting Rights” Amendment enumerated into the constitution? Quite frankly – Yes, yes it does. The problem with the current system is that voting is in fact an inferred right – Although accepted as a right by the general populace, the failure of the U.S. Constitution to directly enumerate it leaves it room for interpretation and manipulation. Thus, the U.S. government may decide who may and may not vote, so long as they do not violate certain guidelines such as the 15th and 19th amendments. The Constitution only prohibits the Government from banning its citizens from voting due to color, race, religion, sex, and the like. Another thing that many Americans don’t realize is that in the 2000 court case Bush v. Gore, the Supreme court ruled “The individual Citizen has no federal Constitutional right to vote,” Because of this, State Governments may infer through the 10th amendment that they too may regulate voter’s rights within their own jurisdictions as it states “The powers not delegated to the United S... ... middle of paper ... ...igher than it was before the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has refused to apply strict scrutiny to felon disenfranchisement except where discriminatory intent can be proven”. (The Missing Right) Having the amendment added will protect America from current and future abuses of power. Eric Holder’s proposition along with that of Mark Schmitt’s “Right to Vote” Amendment would not only protect the rights of ex-convicts - they would protect the voting rights of every American citizen. A wise man once said "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." (Ronald Reagan). If America wishes to remain free from future (and current) abuses of power, she needs the “Right to Vote” directly amended into the constitution in order to insure that Americas leaders are always elected for the people, and by the people.
In document C, John W. Dean who was legal council the the U.S. President Richard M. Nixon said, “While compulsion of any kind is a restriction, so is the compulsion to drive only on the right side of the road. Requiring citizens to vote is no more restrictive than requiring them to register for the draft. And it is far less restrictive than requiring us, for example, to attend school; to serve on juries, possibly for weeks or months at a time; to pay taxes; or to serve in the military when drafted”(Dean). That shows the multitude of laws or requirements in America that are less important than voting, but are required. Voting is for the good of the country, yet people won't vote, but won't bat an eye when they are forced into jury duty.
Today, the citizens of the United States must push Congress to formulate an oversight measure to fix voter disenfranchisement. By itself, Supreme Court Ruling Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder does minimal damage to the voting process of the United States. The court ruled discriminatory practices of district actions half a century old unconstitutional, but left a responsibility for Congress to modernize the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that no district nor individual is discriminated against. Given the history of the United States’s voter suppression and the original need for the Voting Rights Act, a new, modern voter equality policy is of dire importance.
Many people believe that felons do not deserve the right to vote. For these people, voting is not an inherent right; rather it is a privilege given to deserving people that wish to make a positive change to their lives. Some believe that, “…there is no reason for a felon to vote or to debate about whether or not they have that right…they made the choice to break the law, so why should they have any say in making it?” {Siegel} In this point of view, giving felons the right to vote is similar to rewarding them. With the right to vote, felons are still able to sway decisions regarding the lives of a society they are no longer a part of. Felons are meant to be punished, stripped of numerous rights including that of voting. Punishments, then, are made to restrict a person, not give them more freedom and decision.
One reason we must have the second amendment is to protect the freedom for which our country fought so hard to win. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[1] However, if these rights were ‘self-evident’, why did the founding fathers need to grant them to the states? We might as well ask why man is the way that he is, imperfect. We all wonder about this sad truth, but the fact remains that man is fallen. These rights are self-evident, obvious to human reason, but because humans are fallen, we are sometimes blinded to these apparent truths and we err in our rationality. King George was blind to these unalienable rights, as were Na...
The United States is one of the only few democratic countries that disenfranchises convicted felons. An estimated 5.85 million people charged with a felony are banned from voting. Moreover, felon disenfranchisement laws are a form of racial discrimination because a large percentage of felons are Hispanic, Latino or African American that have been incarcerated as a result of racial profiling. Denying felons from voting is unconstitutional since the right to vote and cast a ballot is supposed to be the cornerstone of democracy. Felons who have completed their sentence should be restored their right to vote as they should be able to participate in elections just like every other citizen. Despite being charged with a felony, felons are also American
In this amendment it states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
Throughout the nation there are 5.3 million Americans who are denied their right to vote because they have a criminal conviction on their record (“Felon Voting Rights”). In the state of Florida, a felon can’t apply for his right to vote to be restored until at least five years after he has completed his sentence, with no guarantee of his rights being restored. Violent and repeat felons haven’t proved they are good citizens; however non-violent felons, who have committed victimless crimes, should be allowed to have their rights restored when they have served their time and paid off their fines. Non-violent felons would have a better chance of readapting into society because they would be able to vote in elections, be rehabilitated, and return to fully contributing members of society.
In the New York Times editorial “Florida’s 1.5 Million Missing Voters,” written by The Editorial Board, the topic of felon disenfranchisement is brought up and has been a major issue in the first few days of the new year. Majority believe Felon Disenfranchisement is “...a destructive, pointless policy...” that hurts not only the people not allowed to vote, but the American democracy itself. Another topic in this discussion is the restoration of rights for those who have served their time. Correspondingly, many elected representatives are fighting to have this policy revoked and to give the right to vote back to many people. However, other representatives such as governor Rick Scott, made some biased decisions. For example, a man who was charged with manslaughter due to drunk driving was pleading with Scott about gaining back his rights, but the governor didn’t give him the time of day because that was how his uncle died. Many have explicitly stated that this policy is absurd. The right to vote should be given to everyone and only be withheld under extreme circumstances. The restoration of rights shouldn’t depend on the whims of the governor. In like manner, the governor is no friend to voting rights, and lawmakers have limited power when it comes to constitutional amendments. For this reason, Florida’s voters need to step up and help restore the most fundamental constitutional right to more than a million of their fellow citizens.
Within the Black/African American community today, there is a lot of discussion about the prison system, and how it seems as if it is modern day slavery. One example of this is felon disenfranchisement, which is when a person has become ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction, regardless of if they have served their sentence. African Americans are not the only people affected by this, but being that African Americans make up most of the prison population, it is understood why this is a big deal in the community. To many, felon disenfranchisement brings up feelings of the past when African Americans were considered equal, but when it came to things such as voting, it was rarely afforded to them. However, people both inside and outside
My final reason for returning ex-felons their right to vote is because we as a country needs to stop dividing and unit. The right to vote in America is one the main ingredients of democracy. A democracy includes everyone in America, not just people you think are good. We need to give these people a chance improve themselves. For this country to become better and for this democracy to work, you cannot exclude a large
“To impose a permanent ban or to require an additional waiting period on the quintessential element of citizenship, the right to vote is to deny that which is given by birth or achieved by naturalization — citizenship. The right to vote has been jealously guarded since the founding of the United States.
Cory N Steinle, educator for the Penn State Presidential Leadership Academy, recently published her beliefs on disenfranchisement. “To me, all felons should not be allowed to vote. It’s not because they’re incorrigible. It’s not because they can’t be reformed. It’s because disenfranchisement is an effective deterrent on crime.” (Steinle, Cory N, Felons Shouldn’t Have the Right to Vote) Though banishing those convicted of a felony is a potential way to eliminate the disenfranchisement problem in the United States, it does nothing but sweep individuals rights under the rug. “I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance…” (McDonnell, Robert F., Felon Voting) Citizens must understand the importance of maintaining voting rights within all race, age, and gender populations. Voting rights are not being “handed back” to the ex-convict. There are steps, and procedures they must follow in order to regain their rights as a civically engaged citizen. But, having the 90-day waiting period, and enforcing that felons partake in the renewal of their rights, this guarantees that the individuals actually want to have their rights restored, and they want to partake in society once again. Reentry into society can be a difficult part of rehabilitation. Getting a job, finding a place to reside, paying court fees, regaining the trust of friends and family can all be discouraging processes. Studies show that by reentering society and participating in elections and polls, ex-convicts are significantly less likely to fall into recidivism. Participating in an election can make an individuals voice feel heard. Hans A.von Spakovsky, law reform initiator and senior legal fellow spoke on felon restoration rights for The Heritage Foundation. “Recidivism among felons is extremely high. The U.S. Justice Department reports that over
Conference, T. L. (n.d.). Voting Rights Act. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/vra/
Federal limitations to certain amendments, known as federal mandates, have taken power away from the masses. To secure democracy and avoid further abuses of power by the judicial courts, an amendment should be made to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government from putting down mandates that directly interfere with the power given to the states by law. Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes. The federal government cannot tell the states what to do but such schemes are just unfair. An amendment abolishing federal mandates would create a stronger democracy by giving the state legislatures full control over the implementation of laws at the discretion of the voters thus placing power back in the heart of the US democracy, the people, where it belongs.
Suffrage is a liberty that millions of people have (and still do) fight for. However, in countries like America where the right to vote has not only been created but enforced, people tend to ignore their right to vote simply because the don’t wish to. While the forefathers didn’t intend to make this implication, Americans in the mid to late 18th century would likely challenge people on their folly for not completing their civic responsibility that thousands of soilders died for. But should citizens be forced to fulfill their civic responsibilities?