From: thorne-c@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:38:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.205033.4409@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <SMITH.92Oct15084144@gramian.harvard.edu> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>>cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>>> Thus the Constitution did not define citizen when originally
>>> written.  The 14th Amendment did, however, define citizen as all
>>> persons born or naturalized in the United States.  If a state
>>> denied voting to any "person" over 21 years of age, they lost
>>> representation in Congress.

>>Only when the right to vote is denied to male inhabitants (citizens,
>>21 yrs), and only a proportion of representaion is reduced.

>>> If the 14th Amendment clarified what a citizen was, ie all persons
>>> born or naturalized in the US, why the need for the 15th/19th etc
>>> Amendments?  Are they not redundant?  Or were slaves and women not
>>> considered persons?

>>All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens.  Not all of
>>them had the right to vote.  

>I don't follow this. If all citizens were defined, then why were not
>all citizens given the right to vote in an amendment (if necessary)
>rather than women specified as getting the vote. 
>If there was a clause that said only male citizens had the vote, then
>YES, an amendment was necessary to correct the clause.

>>> (My point here is that the 14th Amendment should have been adequate to
>>> use the courts to enforce the constitutional rights of all citizens, in
>>> that citizen was finally defined.)

>>The Fourteenth Amendment was very clear about who could not be denied
>>the vote.  That's why the Nineteenth was necessary to provide (near)
>>universal adult suffrage. 

>I thought the 14th was about who a citizen was, NOT who could not be 
>denied the vote. Which clause states who can vote?


	Questions of Voting in the U.S.A. and the U.S. Constitution

I expect that some of the confusion on this issue is due to confusion about
the establishment of the United States.  When the Constitution was written
and ratified the states (which already existed--former colonies who became
states and part of the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation--1776-1789)
gave up some powers to the U.S. which they previously held.  The powers they
gae up and delegated to the U.S. are delineated in the U.S. Constitution.

Powers which the states did not specifically give to the U.S. government
were still retained by the states.  As an example, the treatment of both
slaves (which were specifically defined as property) and women (also in
somewhat of a chattel relationship under British Common Law, as well as
voting rates were retained by the states.

The Southern States which had slaves (importation of which could not be
denied until at least 1808) could continue to treat the slaves as they
had prior to the U.S. being formed under the constitution.  Voting powers
were also reserved within the states.

Thus when at the end of the Civil War, Congress decided to propose amendments
to the constitution to settle the slavery issue.  Everyone born in the U.S.
(or naturalized) was defined as a citizen.  It was also declared that no
state could deny anyone the right to vote due to race.  They could have
declared that all citizens could vote, but they did not.

At the end of WW I, the women's rights movement demanded voting rights.  This
was established by a constitutional amendment denying states the right to
deny anyone the right to vote on the basis of sex.  They could, of course,
had made the amendment one to give all citizens over 21 the right to vote,
but they didn't.

Thus states had the right to decide who could vote, and under what conditions.
In fact, states still control the voting process.  In the United States, to
run for an office such as President, one must be nominated in each state.  This
is done in a number of different ways--some states by primary election, some
by state convention.  One of the detriments to a third party is that being
nominated is a very lengthy and time consuming process.  One must be nominated
in each and every state (and typically in every county and precint as well).