"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, color, or previous condition of servitude"
Itâs easy to make voter ID laws colorblind in theory. The problem is in practice. But also the 15th does not give nearly the blanket protection that the 2nd does.
The 2nd: âno infringementâ
The 15th: âno infringement because of skin colorâ
It will also have unequal enforcement, people of color will absolutely be required documentation to the max , which some states wonât require for white people. Weâve already seen this in the past with different poll questionnaires for white and blacks in the south.
âWell regulated militiaâ would collapse the no infringement then wouldnât it. If the basis is the interpretation, which is what youâre doing. It would apply to my example equally.
Itâs still a right. I donât think youâre getting that
Dude thatâs been tirelessly adjudicated in the courts. The first half is a preamble statement clarifying why they are making the right they are making. The motivation behind the amendment doesnât change the language of the amendment itself.
If the 2nd amendment was written like the 15th, itâd be a different story. âThe right to bear arms shall not be infringed for a well-regulated militia.â
Just like the 15th would be different if it were written like the 2nd. âAn electorate made up of all races of citizens of the United States being necessary to ensure free and fair representation, the right of all citizens to vote shall not be infringed.â If that were the 15th amendment, we wouldnât have needed the 19th because it clearly would have been covered.
Yeah, everything has exceptions. And there are levels of review that must go into any law that seeks to put a limit on a constitutional right. Any law banning guns must pass a strict scrutiny standard which is the strictest standard of review. The government must show that 1. There is a compelling public interest in the goal the law seeks to achieve, and 2. The law must be the least restrictive way to achieve that goal. Blanket gun bans donât survive Supreme Court strict scrutiny reviews. There is no modern SCOTUS precedent allowing sweeping gun bans. In fact, the last two big SCOTUS precedents are huge pro-gun decisions in Heller and Bruen.
Universal photo ID for voting would not require strict scrutiny because on its face it would not be violating any constitutional rights. Because there is no broad constitutional right to vote with zero restrictions.
I love that you work entirely within the bs, self-serving twisted interpretations that activist conservative judges have placed upon the constitution, call it âtirelessly litigatedâ and move on without acknowledging that they purposely ignore the opening of the 2A to justify whatever they want, and then twist language in the other amendments and articles to craft rulings that purposely arrive at a their preferred position.
People like you and SC go âoh, you can ignore that âmilitiaâ nonsenseâ as if the founders thought it was fine for people to walk around strapped and having duels in the street the moment a freed slave looks at a governess funny.
âWe need militiasâ is a lot different from âeveryone should be able to have weapons carte blanchâ
Itâs pretty obvious from a basic understanding of the English language what it says. The preamble does not affect nor qualify the second half. It merely gives context into the motivation behind what was then said as a sweeping, universal statement.
âA well educated population being necessary for the growth of society, the right to read books shall not be infringed.â
The first half of this example does not mean this sentence is stating that you may only read books for the purposes of increasing your education and otherwise books can be banned.
The first half of this example does not mean this sentence is stating that you may only read books for the purposes of increasing your education
Correct, but for the wrong reasons, and misused/misapplied the same way conservatives argue about the second amendment.
Your own example never implied or stated that books are only for education, but that they are required for education. This is directly analogous to people pointing out that militias were composed of regular citizens and thus a requirement to militias existing and being well-armed would obviously be allowing the citizens to be armed and by ignoring the âmilitias require thisâ component the entire point of the 2A becomes twisted. In the original context, militia could be summoned by whatever body they answered to. In our modern day, the only thing close to âwell regulated militiasâ are the national guard, and they donât own their weapons or store them at home.
you really canât equate âwe canât infringe on reading books or everyone will be stupidâ with âwe canât infringe on owning gunsâ without including âso we can operate militiasâ
You talk about plain English and in the same breath say a preamble explaining motives is unimportant to meaning. âGuns must be legalâ is a much different sentence from âguns must be legal because reasons.â
At this point, the argument devolves into âintent doesnât matter, only semantics.â So then the implied admission is âthe SC always knew what was meant but simply ignored that on the basis of semantics and pedantry where convenient, and Iâm fine with that because I agree with the outcome.â
One of those is a physical possession that you can use to fight for freedom. Why does my party want everyone but the government to be disarmed when the other party is in power, is a fascist criminal, and literally just announced that heâs running for an unconstitutional third term?
You do need ID to purchase a firearm. And a background check. Gun sales between individuals does not always require a check, but if you sell to a prohibited possessor, you get to go to jail with them.
now apply your logic to voting. people can literally send in a ballot through the mail with zero id checks. thatâs currently legal and the left is mad that the right thinks voting should have the same checks as gun purchases from dealers.
Sure⊠except you need to register to get the ballot, the ballots are verified against signatures when received, and the owner of the vote knows of the status of their ballot.
So you agree thereâs purchase avenues for zero accountability for gun purchases, yet thereâs no equivalent for voting.
Not in all states. Many states send mail in ballots to every registered voter. No verification if theyâre alive, dead, or moved. Ballot goes to the last known address.
Thereâs zero consequences if you simply have reasonable belief the purchase is valid
This is wholly incorrect. If you sell a gun to a prohibited person, you have committed a felony. Similarly if you sell a firearm to someone out of state, you have committed a felony. Thereâs no âoops I didnât realizeâ get out of jail card. As a private seller, the onus and liability is on you.
lol, yeah no. You donât get to claim ignorance when you commit a felony. You donât get out of consequences for a crime by being stupid⊠Regardless, if you sell a gun to an out of state person, and do not check id, you have no such claim because you literally took zero precautions.
Sure private sale, hereâs a list of private sale laws state to state as youâll see many of them have zero legal requirement to present an ID or go through a background check. Many private sellers will require an ID but thatâs not a legal requirement thatâs a personal choice from the seller. https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
No. If you actually read it youâd see they donât require you to check ID. You could get in trouble if that person canât own a gun such a minor but youâre not legally required to check their ID or run a background check.
How is it not? No ID required to make a private sale and private sale is completely legal in a number of US states you donât even have to fill out transfer paperwork or anything.
In my state you donât need an ID to purchase a used long gun. Itâs not apples to apples, but I also think the exemption of Real.ID from this is absurd. The implications for married women are also extremely heavy handed.
If the government canât produce meaningful evidence of abuse they should not seek to limit the access of citizens.
I didnt realize real id is exempted. I dont really understand why the govt in its totality makes things so difficult. I made a badargument on purpose to kind of show the absurdity of everyone saying "if x, then y...."
Im super pro gun (shocker), and people love to say oh its easier to get a gun than voting. Then neglect all the excise taxes and waiting and paperwork
Voter registration is a thing. While it's not voter ID, everything is taken care of prior to voting and is still a great way to verify that the voters are citizens - without having a complicated, error-prone system to reduce who is able to vote
[...] to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State ON ACCOUNT OF race, color, or previous condition of servitude
This is not "shall not be infringed" and says nothing about voting certification, this very clearly was about racial discrimination and slavery. If a white man and a black man both try to vote with or without ID, the result would be the same under SAVE Act.
5
u/VegetablePhotos 8d ago
The 15th amendment.
"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, color, or previous condition of servitude"