Quote:relevance isn't a qualifier for constitutional rights. The right to bear arms and form militias are specifically granted as inalienable rights in the constitution voting is not.

 

 

Not a single one of those amendments creates and inalienable right to vote, it creates protections against discrimination from granting individuals access based upon various reasons and rightfully so.

 

If we where a democracy and I believed a democracy was the best form of government, I'd be with you 100% don't oppress the individuals ability to voice their opinion, but we're not a democracy. I think a democracy leads to an unsustainable state, where the majority can vote to take from the minority, that's dangerous for everyone, To protect a republic, representation by the most qualified to lead is essential, on that ground I don't want people that are simply ignorant to the process participating.

 

Every form of dictatorship or tyranny is first supported by the masses as a liberator or social reformer, it's to easy to fool the public into giving up liberty for the sake of safety and security. The goal of a democracy is for everyone to vote and have a voice, the goal of a republic is for the people to be represented by the most qualified. We want the best leaders not the popular leader, there's a big difference.

 

 

A qualifier on participating in federal elections isn't an opportunity to oppress the people, driving millions to the polls to vote "party" lines because that's what they've been told to do is the greatest tool of oppression.

 

In the past you had the jim crow laws that where specifically targeting minorities with that stated purpose that's VERY different from a voters license. I've said specifically you CAN NOT restrict one's ability to participate based upon ones gender, race, financial standing.

 

The Quality of the Vote is the goal in a Republic, the Quantity of Votes is what matters in Democracy.