Las Vegas Sun

January 28, 2015

Currently: 61° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Right to vote isn’t in the Constitution

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Letter writer Joel Rector is wrong, as are all the other people who think they have a constitutional right to vote (“Voting is guaranteed under the Constitution,” Sept. 25). Although there are many phrases, clauses and amendments in the U.S. Constitution concerning not denying the right to vote to certain people, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly guarantees anyone the right to vote.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 7 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. There is no explicit, affirmative right to vote in the Constitution, besides the explicit protection of the 15th amendment.

    Is that an excuse to target minorities by adding additional hurdles to the voting process? No.

    Is that an excuse to "purge" voter rolls by targeting college students or people with common names or ethnic names? No.

    Is that an excuse to allow secretly-funded 3rd-party groups to challenge the vote of registered voters? No.

    Are all of these actions obviously discriminatory and aimed at suppressing turnout in order to help GOP candidates? Yes.

    The GOP is so pathetic and sad, their only hope at winning elections is by rigging the game.

  2. There's nothing in the Constitution that "explicitly guarantees" political parties either. We should eliminate them long before we consider tinkering with voting laws.

  3. This is an accurate statement by the letter writer. It's a state decision. Even those under 18 can be granted the right. Those in prison can/ are denied the right by states. These are not constitutional matters.

  4. Interesting point! It certainly opens the door for some new amendments.

    1) Making it clear that all citizens have a right to vote.

    2) Eliminate the Electoral College.

    3) Guaranteeing the equal rights of political parties in campaigns.

    4) Removing "personhood" from corporations and unions.

    5) Eliminating lobbyists

    6) Banning money in politics

    7) Direct popular vote of President and Congress members.

    8) Let's add a federally established voter ID upon reaching the age to vote, including a centralized birth registry with access to all citizen's to easily and inexpensively to obtain a certified valid birth certificate.

    9) We could have an internal passport/ID that we could carry with us, validating our identity and rights as a citizen. It would included a pages to be stamped when official business is done, like registering marriages, births, voting, etc.

    10) Right of women to be free of mental and physical abuse

    11) Right of the individual, of any gender, to be the sole decision maker in their choices and decisions about their reproductive health and interests, without interference from elected officials to abridge that right.

  5. Voting has become a joke. Left and right, all politicians are filthy, lying, thieves who are self-serving pieces of trash. I do love the youthful enthusiasm of so many who actually believe it makes a difference who gets into the white house and congress. Heh, heh. Keep up that mystical belief. It's good for the soul.

  6. PeaceLilly
    How about removing "personhood" from the government..
    The "government has become entirely too opinionated of late i.e. an elected or unofficial official acting in an official capacity and spouting off about his/her personal opinion as a matter of public policy..such as..Hillary Clinton's film review..
    Frankly..I don't think she should be calling any film reprehensible or offensive and neither should Obama..It is not their job to Critique films or make opinions about free speech best left to the Supreme Court
    They should condemn the murder of an American Ambassador which is illegal and well within the purview of the President and Secretary of State instead of being Bullies who shout out from the Public Pulpit..

  7. The government is persons. It is a government created by We the People, as stated in the preamble to the Constitution.

    The film was incredibly offensive, even to me, and I am not Muslim.

    Given the critical events in the Middle East, it is clear that diplomacy does not ignore what is both inciting violence, particularly against American's, nor condone it, when it is clearly morally wrong.

    I am very happy with the response of the State Department, including Hilary Clinton, as well as President Obama, in their response to the events and the film.

    I wish I could be respectful of Mr. Romney's premature ejaculation of criticisms of the Obama Administration, but I do understand his severe lack of any foreign policy or diplomatic skills, as well as his irresponsible politicizing of a life and death situation underway. It is the way he is...clueless. He has one aim...power for himself at any cost.

    The argument of free speech is not viable since it has already been decided by the Supreme Court that you cannot apply the free speech argument when it is dangerous and false, such as in this case.