Is there a constitutional right for citizens of the United States to vote in federal elections?
Neal Boortz says that there is no constitutional right for American citizens to vote in federal elections.
Is Neal Boortz correct?
The Constitution of the United States (1787) begins with these familiar and famous word: "We the
People of the United States . . ." What does the expression -- "We the People" -- presuppose? What
does the language imply, or mean? What does the declaration suggest? What does the designation
-- "We the People" -- signify? Who is this term -- "We the People" -- naming? Who does this label --
"We the People" -- comprehend, embrace, embody, encompass, etc.?
In giving my answer to the question -- Is there a constitutional right for citizens of the
United States to vote in federal/national elections? -- I will respond to Boortz's assertions
and opinions.
Boortz says: "Sorry ... but it's hard to deal with the uneducated dumb masses
sometimes."
Boortz is a radio talk-show host. His audience will include the uneducated dumb masses which he finds
it so difficult to deal with. Sometimes a caller will telephone in to the radio show, and show themselves
to be not only uneducated, but also uninteresting. Look . . . they've been listening to the same mindless
commercials looping over and over and over again. The mindless commercials are what prepare the dumb
masses for the Neal Boortz radio show! I'm sure that the average listener to the Neal Boortz radio show
does not examine themselves, so as to even consider that they are being singled out as belonging to the
group of those who are -- to use Boortz's words -- "the uneducated dumb masses".
Neal says: "Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every
excuse for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let's face it ... these
government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the truth."
The public schools exist for the purpose of supplying the demand of employers for tamed and trained
wage-workers, for disciplined and domesticated wage-slaves. Educated people are dangerous people.
Educated people are disobedient people. Educated people are discriminating people. They question
what they see, what they think, and what they are told. According to Gilbert Keith Chesterton, "To
train a citizen is to train a critic." To train a person for wage-labor, it is not necessary, or desirable, to
train that person for critical thinking, or for an energetic life of vigorous and virtuous citizenship.
Neal Boortz says: "Let's take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance.
I would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its
hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy. Now don't you find this
just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of Independence,
the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 state even contain the
word 'democracy'? Isn't it odder still that the Constitution specifically says that
our form of government is 'Republican'?"
I agree with Boortz that the United States Constitution does not contain or include the word democracy,
just as the Constitution does not contain or include the words capitalism, private enterprise, laissez-
faire, free-enterprise, individualism, etc.
Interestingly, just as there is no directly expressed and clearly explicit right of the people to vote, so also
there is no directly declared and clearly affirmed right of the people to own property. Amendment V,
ratified December 15, 1791, does talk about persons not being "deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law"; and, Amendment V does say that private property shall not be taken for
public use, without just compensation. But, Amendment V is to property rights what Amendment XV
is to voting rights. These two Amendments seem to assume that a stipulated right exists; but, the rights
which are being taken for granted in these two Amendments are not expressly declared -- they are not
enumerated -- in the United States Constitution. The right of a person to vote is never explicitly declared
in the Constitution; and the right to private property, or personal possessions, is never expressly declared
in the Constitution.
Also, interestingly, Amendment V does not say that the right of citizens of the United States to own
property shall not be denied or abridged . . . . And yet, Amendment XV, ratified February 3, 1870,
does say: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . ." The
United States Constitution does not say everything that could have been said. There are a lot of ideas
and institutions which are not defined, described, clarified or explained in the Constitution of the United
States.
We need to remember that there were factions within, and disputes among, the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention, which opened in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. As to the debate
concerning suffrage, there were ideological democrats and ideological aristocrats. This explains why
the original U. S. Constitution was so vague, so nebulous, and so fuzzy when it came to determining
and delineating certain constitutional propositions and postulates. The question of suffrage, like the
question of slavery, was put aside and put off for another generation to decide and resolve. The framing
and founding authors of the Constitution did not see themselves as writing a final, complete, unalterable,
eternal, fixed, perfect, universal, etc. Constitution. Like slavery, suffrage was deferred and postponed
for a future generation to resolve and to decide. It took a bloody civil war to resolve the slavery question;
it may take another bloody civil war to decide the suffrage question. But, let's hope not!
Amendment XIV, ratified July 9, 1868, states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The word democracy is not in the Constitution. But, the word citizens does appear in the Constitution.
So does the word person. The Constitution does not identify the people as subjects. So then, what are
the attributes of a citizen? The Constitution does not define citizen, and the Constitution does not define
the attributes, or the virtues of a citizen. What are "the privileges or immunities of citizens"? Are "life,
liberty, or property" rights, or are they privileges? I suppose that most intelligent people will say that
voting is both a property and a power of citizenship, that voting is both an attribute and a duty defining
what it is to be a citizen, what it means to be a citizen. If a citizen votes, then it is a citizen's right to
vote. If the American people are called citizens, then the American people must possess the rights of
citizens, and one of the retained rights every citizen possesses and enjoys, as a citizen, is the right to
vote. After the Constitution has enumerated certain rights, there are certain other rights that citizens
retain, even though these rights are not enumerated. In other words, there are rights which are reserved,
saved, and kept, but which are not mentioned in the Constitution.
This is made very clear in Amendment IX, ratified December 15, 1791: This Amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people." In other words, there are presumed rights, there are postulated rights,
which are not constitutional rights, because they are not enumerated in the Constitution. There are
rights claims which are not stipulated or declared by the Constitution. There are established rights,
there are citizen rights, which the very idea of citizens implies; and these rights are to be remembered,
even if they are not enumerated in the Constitution, even if they are not established by the written
Constitution. These unenumerated rights are conserved and preserved, and they may be defended and
protected. These are rights established by habit, custom, convention, tradition, etc. There are natural
rights -- as such rights are often called -- which were not written down in the U. S. Constitution.
These are divine rights -- as theists will call these rights -- which are not specified in the U. S.
Constitution. In other words, the U. S. Constitution does include an Amendment which declares that
there are rights that citizens possess, enjoy and retain which are not enumerated in the Constitution,
but also which the Constitution does not disallow, disavow, disaffirm, discredit or disparage. And so,
although the United States Constitution does not expressly name the franchise as a right of every
person, as a citizen, yet, nevertheless, the franchise is not to be expressly prohibited, forbidden,
condemned, derided, disrespected, or ridiculed.
And so, there is no expressly declared constitutional right to vote in federal/national elections; however
those rights which are not explicitly stated and enumerated in the Constitution are not denied, and they
are not disparaged. If a right is not denied or disparaged, then it is retained. If a right to vote is not
denied or disparaged, then the right to vote is retained as a natural right of citizenship, as a customary
and elementary attribute of citizenship. A right that is not enumerated is a right that is not forbidden.
The right to vote is not prohibited by the Constitution. The right to vote is a cognate of citizenship
-- citizenship and voting were born together. If We the People are citizens, voting is what citizens do!
And so, if votong in a federal election -- if voting in any election -- is not a constitutional right, then is
voting a recognized citizen's right? I say YES!
Boortz says: "Yes .. there's a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson
the idea of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority
in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout
the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult
time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to
spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law.
Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn't
that what democracy (majority rule) means?"
Boortz asserts a controversial opinion when he says that "government welfare programs are outside of
the grant of authority in our Constitution". There is nothing in the Constitution which denies welfare
rights of citizens. Welfare programs were instituted because of a belief that people have welfare rights.
If Amendment IX holds, then just because welfare rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, this
should not be interpreted or understood as denying or disparaging a hypothetical, conceivable, imaginable,
etc. right which the people believe they possess. Before welfare rights were attained or achieved, these
rights were debated, they were disputed by some and defended by others. Welfare governments and
welfare programs are the attainment and achievement of theoretical and putative welfare rights. Now
that we the people have secured welfare rights for ourselves, there are some -- like Neal Boortz -- who
would like to see welfare programs reversed and welfare rights revoked.
Boortz says: "You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought
of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book titled Founding Brothers:
The Revolutionary Generation. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the
very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of
democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats: '... the term "democrat"
originated as an epithet and referred to "one who panders to the crude and mindless
whims of the masses."'
Boortz seems to be suggesting that all our founding fathers were against democracy; but, this is not
true. For example, this is what James Madison, the "Architect of the Constitution", said about the
difference between a democracy and a republic: "In a democracy the people meet and exercise the
government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and
agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confned to a small spot. A republic may be extended
over a large region." These are not the words of a dogmatic, opinionated, intransigent anti-democrat!
Granted, there were rude philosophical aristocrats who used the epithet democrat in order to deride
and insult those who were philosophical democrats. These philosophical aristocrats defined democracy
in such a way that even a philosophical democrat could/would not espouse the idea of democracy as the
idea was being scornfully caricatured, satirized, and ridiculed by the aristocratic faction. Just because
some of our founding fathers hated and feared democracy, it does not follow that all of our founding
fathers hated and feared democracy. And, just because some of our founding fathers hated and feared
democracy, it does not follow that they were correct in hating and fearing democracy. If a deceased
generation had obsolete opinions, then are future generations to be bound and beholden to the archaic
opinions of some bygone generation?
Boortz says: "I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes
the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and
Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering 'to the crude and mindless
whims of the masses.'
"So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the 'democracy'
lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes.
If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the
government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority
of Americans it should do ... then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections
for our rights.
"And now for the right to vote:
"OK .. enough about the democracy thing. Let's move to another area of widespread
ignorance among the American people. Again ... you came by it honestly. Government
schools. I speaking here of the almost universal belief that you have a constitutional
right to vote in a federal election. Hint .. .you do not.
"I talked about this right to vote thing on the show a few days ago, and Web Guy
(the poor SOB) tells me that we have been receiving a string of rather unfriendly
emails from people calling me a moron, an idiot and other similar names for my
statement on the right to vote. Some of these e-mailers cite various Constitutional
provisions in an attempt to prove their brilliance and my abject ignorance.
I sure would like to see some of those e-mails. Maybe Boortz has both the confidence and the courage
to let us see the e-mails, so that we can judge whose arguments are brilliant, and whose arguments are
misinformed.
Boortz says: "Look .. I don't really mind the fact that many of you have been
indoctrinated into this "right to vote" bit by our government schools. You were had.
You were intentionally misinformed. You should not feel ashamed that you were fooled
this way. After all, every where you go you hear about this right to vote BS ... so
it's no wonder you've bought it. The shame is in sticking to your erroneous beliefs
when the facts are presented to you.
"Facts, you say? Yeah ... here are a couple of points for you to consider:
"Let's make our first stop at Wikipedia. We'll make two stops. First, the entry for
"Voting rights in the United States." There you will find the following sentence:
"There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that
they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however,
the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a
felony).
This same reasoning could be used to argue that there is not "right to property" explicitly stated in
the U. S. Constitution, but only that the assumed right cannot be denied without due process, or that
the assumed right cannot be abrogated without just compensation. There are socialists and communists
who believe that the private property rights of the proprietors of large-scale capital ought not to be
abolished without due process and just compensation.
Boortz says: "Next stop .. .the Wikipedia entry for "Sufferage." A subsection of this
entry covers the history of suffrage (the vote) in the United States. Here you go:
"In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally.
There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed the U.S.
Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.
"15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
"19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
"23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the
President and Vice-President
"24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right
to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
"26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from
voting because of their age
"Moving right along now, here's an article written by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.
entitled "The Right to Vote." Jackson writes: "And yet the right to vote is not a
fundamental right in our Constitution." I guess that you folks who have been sending
in those emails (and Cynthia Tucker) are right, and the Congressman is wrong ... right?
Jackson has introduced a voting rights amendment in the congress. Now just why would
he need to do that if the right already existed?"
In answer to all of the above, I do both concede and recognize that there is no explicitly enumerated
right of the American people to vote in federal elections. However, rights that are enumerated in the
Constitution are not an absolute limit to what the people themselves retain as their own essential rights,
both as human beings and as citizens. Some will call these retained rights natural rights; others will call
these God-given rights. In other words, most intelligent people know that there are understood rights,
recognized rights, realized rights, presumed rights, retained rights which are not inventoried in the U. S.
Constitution. If the right to vote is not an enumerated constitutional right, then perhaps the right to vote
ought to be enumerated as a constitutional right. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. is apparently working
for just such a constitutionally declared and defined right of the people to the vote. Neal Boortz, and his
ideological allies and right-wing soul-mates would like it if there never is a constitutionally-declared right
to vote. What is is what ought to be. Whatever is is right. What I wish Boortz would make clear is
that most intelligent and educated philosophical democrats know the difference between a right that
is constitutionally-enumerated, and a right that is not constitutionally-enumerated. If the right of
citizens to vote in a federal/national/general election is not yet constitutionally-enumerated, then those
who believe the right to vote ought to be enumerated will work hard for the day when the right to vote
is at last plainly enumerated and clearly enunciated in the Constitution.
Boortz says: "I'm not through with you yet. Let's go to Michael C. Dorf. Dorf is the
Vice Dean and professor of law at Columbia University. Dorf wrote this article
entitled "We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Tell me,
would a law professor write a column calling for a constitutional right to vote if we
already had one?"
Of course, the answer is No! But, again, there are rights which the Constitution does not enumerate,
and these rights the Constitution does not deny or disparage. Boortz does seem to deny the right to
vote. The Constitution does not deny the right to vote. The Constitution does not enumerate the
right to vote. There's a difference; and the difference needs to be made clear.
Boortz says: "Final stop ... the complete text of the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the case of George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert
Gore, Jr., et al. Take a look at Section II, Paragraph B. The very first sentence
there reads: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for
electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature
chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members
of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1."
Yes! But, look closely at the two important conjunctions, unless and until. There is a conditional
federal constitutional right for individual citizens to vote for electors for the President if this right is
chosen by the state legislature as the means to implement its power to appoint the electors. A right
that is retained can be enumerated; the right to vote is not yet enumerated, but it is a retained right of
citizens by every definition of citizen.
Boortz says: "Enough? I would certainly hope so. So you clowns out there keep sending
all of those emails telling me what an idiot I am for saying that there is no
constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Read the sources I've presented
to you above ... and send me another email."
In response, again, I do not contest Boortz's assertion that the U. S. Constitution does not formally
state, expressly declare, or explicitly proclaim the right of American citizens to vote directly in a
federal/general election. However, what I do protest is the slant Boortz gives to the conceded facts,
the angle Boortz puts on the stipulated facts. The Constitutional Convention was convened and
commissioned to compose and to enact a federal constitution. There were factions, such as the
republicans and the nationalists. There were also the democrats and the aristocrats. The debate
between the democrats and the aristocrats was over questions of suffrage, individual rights, ease of
amendment, and the susceptibility of the federal government to popular pressure. If a federal
Constitution was to be composed and enacted, the differences of opinion had to be counted out.
The opposed opinions that separated the factions had to be left out. Otherwise the dabates would
have gone on and on and on. Therefore, the final document did not reflect the original intent of the
framers, because there was no original intent, there was no unified spirit, there was no original sense,
there was no united message, there was no unmixed meaning, there was no undivided mind. The idea
that the framers were of one opinion, one mind, one view, one sentiment, etc. is a simpleton's myth,
a fool's fiction. In order to conclude the Convention, and to complete the Constitution, the original
differences of conception and conviction, between the differing factions, just had to be cut out of the
final document. The Convention started on May 25, 1787; and the Constitution was approved and
adopted on September 17, 1787. It was then sent to the states for ratification. The actual written
Constitution took that long to compose. Controversial philosophical and polemical differences would
have taken too long to settle; and so, certain convictions and recommendations were left out.
In fact, the authors of the Constitution built into the document a flexible ambiguity. They also arranged
that the Constitution should be adaptable, without undue strain, to inevitable changes in circumstances.
The framers of the Constitution wisely avoided the temptation to solve every foreseeable problem on
paper.
The U. S. constitution was a compromise; it was a composition written by democrats and aristocrats.
If there was an original intent, then which faction's intent are we to believe is inscribed in the document?
I dare say the original Constitution was a provisional settlement, a temporary agreement, an urgent and
serious consensus, fabricated and framed by opposed factions, perhaps with the optimism and the
confidence that in time the Constitution would be developed and perfected. Of the 55 delegates to the
Convention, only 39 delegates actually signed the finished document.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the Pennsylvania delegates said, when he left the Convention: "I confess that
there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall
ever approve them." And so, there was never an original unified and solidified intent. (By the by, as a
founding father, Franklin's view of private property is interesting enough to think about. According to
Franklin: "Private property is the creature of society and is subject to the calls of that society even to
the last farthing." I suppose that Boortz strongly disagrees with this founding father as concerns the
right of private property. And yet, there was as much disagreement about property rights as there was
about voting rights, among the founding fathers of these United States, and among the framers of the
Constitution.)
Thomas Jefferson was not at the Philadelphia Convention, because he was away in Paris. And so, his
strong pro-democratic oratorical skills were not present at the Convention. I suppose that if Jefferson
had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, perhaps we would have had a different federal
Constitution. Who can say?
Tom Paine refused to go to the Convention, saying: "I smell a rat."
Alexander Hamilton was a New York delegate; and, in a Brief of Argument on the Constitution of the
United States, in 1788, Hamilton wrote these words: "Great confusion about the words democracy,
aristocracy, monarchy. . . . Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the
people,whether exercised by themselves or by representatives, chosen by them either mediately or
immediately and legally accountable to them. . . . Consequence, the proposed government
a representative democracy. . . .Constitution revocable and alterable by the people. This representative
democracy as far as is consistent with its genius has all the features of good government."
I do not know if this statement represents Hamilton's own view, since in other writings Hamilton
expresses some very anti-democratic sentiments. So, perhaps the above words are simply Hamilton's
summary sketch of the Philadelphia Convention's negotiated resolve. The point is that, even if
Hamilton was a vigorous and energetic philosophical anti-democrat, yet he seems to recognize and
acknowledge that the United States, as constituted and established by the Constitution, is a
representative democracy. In other words, the Constitution has founded and formed a species of
democracy, a sort of democracy -- not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy. In a
representative democracy, democracy is focused and centered in an Assembly of Representatives.
whether the Assemply is a Parliament or a Congress.
Why were there philosophical anti-democrats among the founding fathers of the United States?
In his Politics, Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, wrote: "A democracy exists whenever those
who are free and not well-off, being in the majority, are in sovereign control of government." Those
who are well-off do not want those who are not well-off to be in sovereign control of the government.
Those who are wealthy property owners do not want those who are poor in control of the government.
Those who are fortunate do not want those who are unfortunate to have hegemonic political ascendancy
and authority in the government. Some of those who are wealthy believe that those who happen to be
wealthy should be in sovereign control of the government. All the founding fathers of these United States,
and all the framers of the U. S. Constitution, were well-to-do proprietors. Some of them believed that
their property-owning class should be in sovereign control of the government; and, some of them
believed that their property-owning class should share sovereign control of the government with the
class of non-proprietors. One conservative delegate, Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts, argued that
democracy is "the worst of all political evils".
George Washington was a Virginia delegate; and, in a Letter to Patrick Henry, September 24, 1787,
Washington wrote these words: "I wish the Constitution, which is offered, had been made more perfect;
but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is
opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in
my opinion desirable."
Perhaps a majority of the delegates felt that the Constitution they were able to approve and adopt was
the best they could achieve, at the time. Perhaps the democrat faction at the Convention believed that,
in some future time, the right of American citizens to directly vote in federal/national elections would
eventually be expressly declared in a lawful and rightful Amendment.
James Madison, also a Virginia delegate, once wrote: "As a man is said to have a right to his property,
he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."
This statement would seem to imply that there are rights, which were not enumerated in the original
Constitution, but which are the property of every person and citizen. A right that is retained is a right
that is owned, in the same way that a property is said to be owned by a person.
It is interesting and relevant to this discussion to note that James Madison, who is often called the
"chief architect of the American Constitution", joined with Thomas Jefferson, to create the
Democratic-Republican party, which became the Democratic Party in 1828. The Federalists changed
their party to the Whig party in the 1820s, and in 1854 the Whig party became the Republican party.
What does it mean that Madison helped to create a political party that gave itself he name Democratic-
Republican?
Boortz says: "Some would say that intelligence can be measured by your ability to
recognize that you're wrong on an issue. Many times in my 38-year talk radio
career I've had to admit that I got something wrong. I hope I never grow too old
to learn. Some of you are already there.
"By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these
unqualified voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history
of the world! Once we have accepted the truth – that they don't have a constitution
right to vote – then we can set about the task of getting some of these dumb masses
out of our voting booths. Think about it ... we offer parasites the opportunity to
register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the hell kind of sense does that
make?
"Nuts to the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We didn't put them there.
They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't want them making decisions that
can affect the way I live my life .. and how much of the money that I earn I can keep.
If we must, we'll take care of them and make sure they don't starve, get basic medical
care, and have a place to go when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't
do for stray animals .. .but they sure don't need to be voting.
"Understanding our rights is one thing ... know our non-rights is also important."
I have nothing to say in response to the rest of Boortz's message.
However, in conclusion, those who believe that the citizens of a republic should never have the right
to vote in a federal/national election need to remember that there are other rights not enumerated in the
U. S. Constitution. If you do not respect the right to vote, but you do respect the right to property,
then perhaps your preferred right is not as securely rooted as you like to believe. Look at what's
happening these days with abusive uses of eminent domain. Maybe we need a Constitutional
Amendment that enumerates the right of citizens to vote in federal/national elections, just as we need
a constitutional Amendment that enumerates the right of every person to own property. If you can
respect the right to property, then you can respect the right to vote. Both rights are not enumerated;
but, both rights are retained.
Hugo Lafayette Black (1886-1971), U. S. Supreme Court associate Justice, wrote: "No right is more
precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws, because
other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."
Thank you,
Ron Allen
Atlanta, Georgia
