The homeless should be allowed to vote.

As the the resolution states, I will be taking the Pro side on that the homeless should be allowed to vote. Due to the fact my opponent, the instigator, has not provided an argument, I will make one. I am assuming, because my opponent resides in the U.S.A, we will be arguing in the context of the U.S.A. Contention #1: The homeless are still part of society.: In society, a citizen is allowed to vote in an election. Everyone has only 1 vote, whether they are a billionaire, or just a factory worker. The point is, every citizen is entitled to vote. What is a citizen? Here are a few definitions from WWW.Thefreedictionary.com: 1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. 2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there. 3.A civilian 4.A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place As we can see, all of the above descriptions describe a homeless person. He is entitled to protection of the state, he is a civilian, and he inhabitants an area. We can clearly see that if a homeless man fits the description of a civilian, and a civilian is entitled the right to vote, then clearly, it is discriminatory to the homeless person. It is on par with supressing the rights of other minorities, and, should be treated a so. Contention #2: There is no reason why a homeless person shouldn't have the right to vote: As mentioned before, a homeless person has the same rights of any other citizen. If people have the same rights, then why should one person not be allowed to do the same as another. In the constitution of America, it says: ' The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude. ' It is quite clear from this paragraph that no person can be denied the right to vote because of their standing. The government rules the people, but the constitution rules the government. The government cannot, without good will, breach the constitution. Denial of the homeless their right to vote is a violation of the constitution, and anyone who denies them is a criminal. Contention #3: You cannot suppress the voice of the homeless: Like all people, the homeless have an opinion, and in government, want their interests to be represented, like any other citizen. If someone agrees with the Republican party, they vote for them. If someone agrees with the Democratic party they vote for them. The homeless would obviously want someone to address the issue of homelessness. Not having their voice heard means they may never get out of poverty and find a home. Referring back to the U.S. Constitution 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ' It is clear from the U.S. Constitution, every citizen has the right to have the freedom of speech. This includes having the right to vote. It is clearly a constitutional violation if they are not given the right to vote, and subsequently, the right to freedom of speech (i.e. Have their opinion heard through representation by a political figure) This is the basis for my argument and hope my opponent responds.