Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[GarMan]

It's boring when I cite stats, but informational when you do it.  Got it. 

It just becomes a pissing match, when you start playing your games of attempting to trump the other guy by spinning alternative stats.  You know what you're doing. 

A smaller subgroup which, while it has a higher incident rate per person... 

You're spinning again... 

There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication of this. 

... and the same is true of the counter position as well. 

Then please explain exactly what the Constitution is referring to when it uses the phrase "the right of citizens of the United States to vote."  Excluding the prepositional phrase "of citizens of the United states" which operates as an adjective that modifies the noun "right," the phrase explicitly reads "the right to vote."  Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist. 

Here we go...  The Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote, as it does the right to speech.  Further, try a court case...  In Alexander v Mineta, the Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote.”  Need me to go on?  How about qualifications?  The states are actually empowered with qualifying voters, and as long as they don't violate any of the amendments that you've presented, they can do just about anything to "qualify" voters. 

It's not about affording one group more protection; it's about affording each group the same protection.  When you single out one group and take away a right or privilege that other groups have, you're affording those other groups more protection.  Or, more accurately I guess, you're affording those other groups more privileges/rights.  The only acceptable manner in which you can remove the rights or privileges of one group is for a legitimate purpose. 

Hey Buttercup...  I never said "more protection."  You’re arguing with that straw-tiger again.  I’m only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children.  I mean, there’s no “legitimate” reason for preventing them from doing so.  You can’t predict that a pedophile will do anything wrong.  After all, that’s just an assumption at best…  "There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication" that anything improper would occur.

This thread has gotten so ridiculously twisted...  It's boring me...

[Vandy Vol]

... and the same is true of the counter position as well.

Except for the study I submitted that shows no mass disruption in other countries' militaries due to open homosexuality.  And, of course, the testimony of individuals on this forum who stated that they saw no such disruption when individuals were open in their units.  You can disprove those sources if you'd like, but pretending like they've never been referenced is patently false.
 

Here we go...  The Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote, as it does the right to speech.

I never said it did.  I said that the Constitution refers to "the right to vote."  Unless the Constitution is referring to something that doesn't exist, then the right to vote exists.

Further, try a court case...  In Alexander v Mineta, the Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote.”

Of course the Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote; not all citizens are eighteen years of age.  Additionally, you're taking the Court's decision completely out of context.

First, the case was not about whether there was a right to vote or not.  Rather, it was whether felons could be stripped of the right to vote.  Therefore, the Court never stated that there is not a right to vote.

Second, what the Court did state is the following:

"[The Constitution] does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote."

So you see, even the Court in the decision to which you reference recognizes that there is a right to vote.  That right may only protect qualified citizens, but it is a right nonetheless.  Otherwise, the Court and the Constitution would not have utilized the word "right."

Need me to go on?  How about qualifications?  The states are actually empowered with qualifying voters, and as long as they don't violate any of the amendments that you've presented, they can do just about anything to "qualify" voters.

The fact that a right can be removed does not mean that it isn't a right.  As the Court stated in Alexander v. Mineta, the right to vote is granted to qualified individuals.  If you do something that makes you unqualified, then you no longer have that right.  This doesn't mean that it's still not a right amongst qualified individuals.  And as we've seen with women's suffrage and the civil rights movement, the Court has indicated that you must have a legitimate reason to define someone as unqualified.

You can find this in a variety of other situations.  For example, the right to bear arms can be taken away when you achieve felon status.  Or, since you have acknowledged that there is a right to free speech, then you might be interested in knowing that your speech can be limited in certain "unqualified" situations.  The fact that a right can be removed does not mean it isn't a right.
 

Hey Buttercup...  I never said "more protection."  You’re arguing with that straw-tiger again.

However, you did say "more deserving of protection."  If we view someone as more deserving of protection, then we are going to give them more protection, are we not?  At the very least, you're insinuating that we're going to insure that they're given the same protections as everyone else, but that we're going to watch them more closely and protect their interests more adamantly.  Either way, you suggested that we're somehow tiptoeing around them and affording them something extra.

I’m only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children.  I mean, there’s no “legitimate” reason for preventing them from doing so.  You can’t predict that a pedophile will do anything wrong.

There is a difference between a homosexual who is screened and determined to be disease free, and a pedophile who has molested a child previously, and thus does not pass "screening."  I mean, afterall, we wouldn't know they were a pedophile unless they had previously been convicted of child molestation, statutory rape or something similar.  In one situation, you've got a person who poses no current medical risk and is going to be screened just like everyone else to prevent any medical risks from arising.  In the other situation, you have a pedophile who has already done wrong, and thus there is a legitimate reason for restricting their ability to teach kids.  It's no different than a convicted felon being stripped of the ability to purchase a gun.

But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers.  You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.

[GarMan]

More pissing...

Except for the study I submitted that shows no mass disruption in other countries' militaries due to open homosexuality.  And, of course, the testimony of individuals on this forum who stated that they saw no such disruption when individuals were open in their units.  You can disprove those sources if you'd like, but pretending like they've never been referenced is patently false.

Here's a reference...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html?hpt=T2

"As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military," he said. "That includes the unionization of their militaries. It includes open homosexuality demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.

"That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off and executed them," Sheehan said.

"That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II."

Note the phrases "socialize their military" and "unionization of their militaries".  It's easy to play games in 50,000 foot diatribes without adequately considering the longer term consequences of such actions.  But, I'm sure that he's just another bigot...  A racist, white Republican...  Go ahead and attack him now.  That seems to be the modus operandi with you people.  

I never said it did.  I said that the Constitution refers to "the right to vote."  Unless the Constitution is referring to something that doesn't exist, then the right to vote exists.

Of course the Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote...

So you see, even the Court in the decision...

Blah, blah, blah...  

They call that backpedaling.  

There is a difference between a homosexual who is screened and determined to be disease free, and a pedophile who has molested a child previously, and thus does not pass "screening."  I mean, afterall, we wouldn't know they were a pedophile unless they had previously been convicted of child molestation, statutory rape or something similar.  In one situation, you've got a person who poses no current medical risk and is going to be screened just like everyone else to prevent any medical risks from arising.  In the other situation, you have a pedophile who has already done wrong, and thus there is a legitimate reason for restricting their ability to teach kids.  It's no different than a convicted felon being stripped of the ability to purchase a gun.

But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers.  You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Didn't you throw this at me a few posts ago?

When you deny a particular group of people of something, it typically becomes a civil rights issue.  We denied blacks and women voting rights because they were unpopular and/or suppressed groups at the time.  There was no logical or legitimate reason to this; it was simply done because they lacked the political power to change that for years.  Our judicial history has shown that if a right or privilege is going to be denied to anyone, much less an entire sub-group, there must be a legitimate reason behind it.  If you were to allow the majority to suppress whatever it wanted simply because they were the majority, then you would wind up with the English system of oppression from which our founding fathers fled.

If you truly believe what you have articulated, then you should have no problem extending or protecting these "rights" for cross-dressers, pedophiles, transgenders and others.  You're jumping to another half-assed assumption by suggesting a pedophile has victimized a child, and defending your position based on that constraint.  A pedophile does not have to act in order to be characterized as a pedophile.  That's ridiculous.  Of course, I agree with your conviction scenario.  

[Vandy Vol]

Here's a reference...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html?hpt=T2Note the phrases "socialize their military" and "unionization of their militaries".

You cite an article that states that one step they took was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military?  Did you happen to notice that the article also states that they took to peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again?  Call me foolish, but the fact that their ass got stomped might be because they incorrectly believed that the Germans wouldn't attack, which resulted in them not being prepared for the attack.  Let's not forget that your own article states the following:

. . . the gay ban was suspended during the Gulf War with no apparent detrimental impact on military readiness.

So, let's see here.  During the Gulf War, the gay ban was lifted and no detrimental impact was noted.  During the Bosnian massacre, the gay ban was lifted, they took to peacekeeping operations and they weren't expecting the Germans to attack.  There is a common denominator in both instances, yet their failure only occurred during one instance.  A logical conclusion would be that the common denominator was not the cause of failure, but that the newly introduced factors were.  Afterall, if the common denominator in both instances was the reason that they failed, then they would have failed in both instances.  However, they didn't.

They call that backpedaling.

Backpedaling?  Go back and read my other posts.  Please tell me where I ever stated that the Constitution enforces the right to vote.  I have repeatedly stated that the Constitution references the right to vote.  And if you've ever bothered to read the text of the Constitution, you'd realize that it expressly uses the phrase "the right to vote" (excluding the prepositional phrase that operates as an adjective).  My point has consistently been that the Constitution refers to the right.  Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist.

And although you conveniently skipped over the portions of my response which deal with the case that you cited, it is very clear that the Supreme Court agrees with me that a right does exist.  So not only did you cite to a case which proved my point, but you then ignored the fact that I pointed this out.

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Didn't you throw this at me a few posts ago?

Nope.  At one point I stated that I have no clue as to whether a pedophile's affinity toward children is genetic or not.  I also mentioned pedophiles while listing off groups of people to make a point, but I did not state anything about pedophiles in particular.  I've never made a statement that pedophiles should be able to teach, serve in the military or any other activity.  You're conjuring statements out of thin air, just like you did with the accusation that I was back pedaling from "my" statement that the right to vote is enforced in the Constitution, when I had merely stated that it was referred to in the Constitution.  I think this book may be of assistance to you:

If you truly believe what you have articulated, then you should have no problem extending or protecting these "rights" for cross-dressers, pedophiles, transgenders and others.

Have I ever stated that cross dressers should not be able to join the military, or that they should not be able to announce openly that they are cross dressers?  Have I said anything like that about transgenders?  Have I said anything like that about pedophiles?

You make assumptions that I'm only applying this to homosexuals.  Your assumptions are wrong.  Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for any subgroup of people to not be in the military, then they can not be banned.  Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for disallowing them to voice their lifestyle preferences, then they can not be silenced.  This goes for every group:  homosexuals, heterosexuals, Satanists, Christians, racists, sexists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, minorities, etc.  You can't legally deny a right or a privilege without a legitimate reason.  And before you misread that statement as well, let me make it very clear:  I am not stating that all or any of those groups should be in the military.  I am simply stating that before you ban any group, you must have a legitimate reason.

You're jumping to another half-assed assumption by suggesting a pedophile has victimized a child, and defending your position based on that constraint.  A pedophile does not have to act in order to be characterized as a pedophile.  That's ridiculous.  Of course, I agree with your conviction scenario.  

How do you know them to be a pedophile unless they've acted on their desires?  I seriously doubt they're going to check "pedophile" on a military entrance exam.  My point was that we're not able to classify someone as a pedophile unless you know they've affected a child, and you're likely not going to know that they've done something to a child until they've been charged and/or convicted with child molestation, statutory rape, child pornography or something similar.  Therefore, the classification of a person as a pedophile is not going to be realized until the crime is committed.

[GarMan]

You cite an article that states that one step they took was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military?  Did you happen to notice that the article also states that they took to peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again?  Call me foolish, but the fact that their ass got stomped might be because they incorrectly believed that the Germans wouldn't attack, which resulted in them not being prepared for the attack. 

So, you refute the General's position.  He's wrong, and you're right.  His real-world experience must be nothing compared to your vast military experience.  I see... 

Let's not forget that your own article states the following: 
<snip>
So, let's see here.  During the Gulf War, the gay ban was lifted and no detrimental impact was noted.  During the Bosnian massacre, the gay ban was lifted, they took to peacekeeping operations and they weren't expecting the Germans to attack.  There is a common denominator in both instances, yet their failure only occurred during one instance.  A logical conclusion would be that the common denominator was not the cause of failure, but that the newly introduced factors were.  Afterall, if the common denominator in both instances was the reason that they failed, then they would have failed in both instances.  However, they didn't.

Um...  That was the counter-position submitted by American Psychological Association.  I'm sure that their military expertise is top-notch!  Nice spin by the way...  I'll leave the final word with the General. 

Backpedaling?  Go back and read my other posts.  Please tell me where I ever stated that the Constitution enforces the right to vote.  I have repeatedly stated that the Constitution references the right to vote.  And if you've ever bothered to read the text of the Constitution, you'd realize that it expressly uses the phrase "the right to vote" (excluding the prepositional phrase that operates as an adjective).  My point has consistently been that the Constitution refers to the right.  Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist.

And although you conveniently skipped over the portions of my response which deal with the case that you cited, it is very clear that the Supreme Court agrees with me that a right does exist.  So not only did you cite to a case which proved my point, but you then ignored the fact that I pointed this out. 

Unbelievable...  Let's try this.  You're contending that the Constitution's reference to a "right to vote" implies that the right exists without having to explicitly state that it is as a right.  Do you believe that any right can be implied?  Is an "implied right" as protected as an explicit right?  I don't buy it, and a lot of other folks don't either.  And, I don't completely buy into your response to the court case.  The states can define the qualifications for voting.  Those qualifications can't violate the Amendments that you have referenced, but the states can further qualify or deny voting as they see fit.  Again, there really isn't a Constitutional right to vote, just protections from certain qualifications or discrimination. 

Nope.  At one point I stated that I have no clue as to whether a pedophile's affinity toward children is genetic or not.  I also mentioned pedophiles while listing off groups of people to make a point, but I did not state anything about pedophiles in particular.  I've never made a statement that pedophiles should be able to teach, serve in the military or any other activity.  You're conjuring statements out of thin air, just like you did with the accusation that I was back pedaling from "my" statement that the right to vote is enforced in the Constitution, when I had merely stated that it was referred to in the Constitution.  I think this book may be of assistance to you:

Have I ever stated that cross dressers should not be able to join the military, or that they should not be able to announce openly that they are cross dressers?  Have I said anything like that about transgenders?  Have I said anything like that about pedophiles?

You make assumptions that I'm only applying this to homosexuals.  Your assumptions are wrong.  Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for any subgroup of people to not be in the military, then they can not be banned.  Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for disallowing them to voice their lifestyle preferences, then they can not be silenced.  This goes for every group:  homosexuals, heterosexuals, Satanists, Christians, racists, sexists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, minorities, etc.  You can't legally deny a right or a privilege without a legitimate reason.  And before you misread that statement as well, let me make it very clear:  I am not stating that all or any of those groups should be in the military.  I am simply stating that before you ban any group, you must have a legitimate reason. 

You're nuckin' futs!  You've just contradicted yourself again!!!  You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above.  Which is it, and who defines the "legitamte reason(s)" for the denial of anything?  I know that you're willing to apply this to all subgroups, and I also know that there are legitimate reasons for denying certain things to certain subgroups. 

How do you know them to be a pedophile unless they've acted on their desires?  I seriously doubt they're going to check "pedophile" on a military entrance exam.  My point was that we're not able to classify someone as a pedophile unless you know they've affected a child, and you're likely not going to know that they've done something to a child until they've been charged and/or convicted with child molestation, statutory rape, child pornography or something similar.  Therefore, the classification of a person as a pedophile is not going to be realized until the crime is committed. 

Now, you're just plain wacko...  Really going off the deep-end here. 

[Vandy Vol]

So, you refute the General's position.  He's wrong, and you're right.  His real-world experience must be nothing compared to your vast military experience.  I see...

I don't refute it; the studies I posted refute it, and your own article cites a source that also refutes him.  I would tend to believe multiple sources, two of which are generated reports by multiple researchers, than the opinion of one General.

Um...  That was the counter-position submitted by American Psychological Association.  I'm sure that their military expertise is top-notch!  Nice spin by the way...  I'll leave the final word with the General.

You're taking the word of one American General on the reasons for the failure of the Dutch army to prevent the Russians and Germans from attacking Muslims in Bosnia.  This was a military conflict in which America was not involved (as far as actual combat goes) until after the 1995 massacre, yet you think that his military knowledge somehow informs him of why the Dutch failed in this particular conflict?

Let's not forget that his military experience is from a country's military that does not allow homosexuals to openly serve.  When you combine this with the fact that the Dutch suffered no negative consequences subsequent to lifting the gay ban the first time, this General's opinion fails to be very authoritative.  It doesn't take an experienced military genius to see that.  The fact that multiple other sources also refute his opinion doesn't help.

I'm also confused by the fact that you initially would not accept my sources and would not cite sources of your own because if you blindly relied upon the research and conclusions/opinions of others, then you'd "believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy."  Yet you've mysteriously developed the urge to cite to the opinion of this American General and defend it adamantly despite your previous statements.

Unbelievable...  Let's try this.  You're contending that the Constitution's reference to a "right to vote" implies that the right exists without having to explicitly state that it is as a right.

The Constitution expressly refers to the "right to vote."  It either expressly refers to something that exists, or it expressly refers to something that doesn't exist.  Either way, there is no implicit reference; it's very explicit.

Do you believe that any right can be implied?  Is an "implied right" as protected as an explicit right?  I don't buy it, and a lot of other folks don't either.

Read Roe v. Wade.  You won't find the "right to privacy" expressly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court determined that it was an implied right.  Read Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.  You won't find the "right to die" expressly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court determined that it was an implied right.

The Court's stance on implied rights not mentioned in the Constitution is supported by the text of the Constitution.  The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Therefore, the Constitution acknowledges that there are rights which are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, and it indicates that even those implied rights should be protected.

In case you also don't completely buy this response either, then you might want to look to the founding father who proposed the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment:

James Madison

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

But of course, all of this discussion about implied rights is irrelevant, as the Constitution expressly makes mention of the "right to vote."  Something isn't implicit if it's expressly named.  Nonetheless, even if you attempt to reject the argument that the right to vote is expressly within the Constitution, the above information shows that implied rights do exist.  Considering that the Court has acknowledged a right to vote, it would at the very least be an implied right, just as the right to privacy and the right to die are implied rights due to the Court's rulings.

And, I don't completely buy into your response to the court case.  The states can define the qualifications for voting.  Those qualifications can't violate the Amendments that you have referenced, but the states can further qualify or deny voting as they see fit.  Again, there really isn't a Constitutional right to vote, just protections from certain qualifications or discrimination.

The states can not deny voting rights to a group of people for any reason they want; it must be a legitimate one.  Read Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.  The Court explains that the denial of the right to vote must meet constitutional standards, and it must not be either racially discriminatory or indefensible as rational policy.  It's worth noting that in this particular case, the Court determined that Virginia could not single out the poor and remove their right to vote.

You'll also be interested in reading the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  It requires some states to seek federal approval before altering their voting rules.  Broadly declaring that a state can deny voting rights as they see fit is ignoring the federal oversight involved via the judicial branch's ability to determine constitutionality and the federal approval required by legislation.

You're nuckin' futs!  You've just contradicted yourself again!!!  You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but please work on your reading comprehension.  Not once did I state that I never said "anything" about any of those individuals.  See the following:

But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers.  You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.

You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers.  Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in anything.  Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.

. . . who defines the "legitamte reason(s)" for the denial of anything?  I know that you're willing to apply this to all subgroups, and I also know that there are legitimate reasons for denying certain things to certain subgroups.

You're asking a question that can be answered by looking at the basic structure of our government.  The legislative branch develops the laws.  Ultimately, however, the judicial branch is who decides if the law serves a legitimate purpose (or as the Court put it, it must be rational policy) or if it is a Constitutional violation.

Now, you're just plain wacko...  Really going off the deep-end here. 

Yes, I'm so crazy that I forgot that you can magically determine if someone is a pedophile before they actually commit a crime against a child.  School boards should look into hiring you so that they don't have to rely on criminal background checks to classify individuals as drug dealers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. before they even commit a crime.

[Kaos]

Vandy Vol is like the British at New Orleans.  The war is over, he lost pages and pages ago, but still he wanders into a firefight and gets slaughtered.  Carry on, General Pickering. 

[AUChizad]

Vandy Vol is like the British at New Orleans.  The war is over, he lost pages and pages ago, but still he wanders into a firefight and gets slaughtered.  Carry on, General Pickering. 

[GarMan]

I'm also confused by the fact that you initially would not accept my sources and would not cite sources of your own because if you blindly relied upon the research and conclusions/opinions of others, then you'd "believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy."  Yet you've mysteriously developed the urge to cite to the opinion of this American General and defend it adamantly despite your previous statements.

I don't blindly believe it or "defend it adamantly".  I just find it interesting that a retired general "comes out" with the exact same position that I've stated in this very thread.  Plus, the fact that you can't seem to have an opinion of your own without cited references, I thought it would help to expand your horizons a little. 

The Constitution expressly refers to the "right to vote."  It either expressly refers to something that exists, or it expressly refers to something that doesn't exist.  Either way, there is no implicit reference; it's very explicit.

Right...  Do you think before you type this stuff?  Explicit?  Really??? 

The Court's stance on implied rights not mentioned in the Constitution is supported by the text of the Constitution.  The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Therefore, the Constitution acknowledges that there are rights which are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, and it indicates that even those implied rights should be protected.

I'm good with that explanation and generally agree with it.  You've shown that a right could "exist", but without "enumeration" in the Constitution, it is not explicit and cannot necessarily be considered as Constitutionally protected.  This is where many have a problem. 

The states can not deny voting rights to a group of people for any reason they want; it must be a legitimate one.  Read Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.  The Court explains that the denial of the right to vote must meet constitutional standards, and it must not be either racially discriminatory or indefensible as rational policy.  It's worth noting that in this particular case, the Court determined that Virginia could not single out the poor and remove their right to vote.

You'll also be interested in reading the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  It requires some states to seek federal approval before altering their voting rules.  Broadly declaring that a state can deny voting rights as they see fit is ignoring the federal oversight involved via the judicial branch's ability to determine constitutionality and the federal approval required by legislation.

Again, your quest for a pissing match...  I never challenged any of the above.  You're attempting to make an argument where one does not exist.  It's like challenging the "wetness" of water.  Frustrating and annoying... 

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but please work on your reading comprehension.  Not once did I state that I never said "anything" about any of those individuals. 

You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers.  Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in anything.  Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.

Oh...  So now, we're playing the literal game.  I see.  By the way, it seems that you don't have to try...

You're asking a question that can be answered by looking at the basic structure of our government.  The legislative branch develops the laws.  Ultimately, however, the judicial branch is who decides if the law serves a legitimate purpose (or as the Court put it, it must be rational policy) or if it is a Constitutional violation.

This is unbelievable.  Wake me up when you're done espousing this schit...  In this thread, you seemed pretty quick to discredit everyone else's "legitamate reason(s)".  Now, you're throwing this out? 

Yes, I'm so crazy that I forgot that... 

Seriously, do you hear yourself?  Was it really necessary to walk down that street? 

[Vandy Vol]

Right...  Do you think before you type this stuff?  Explicit?  Really???

Do you read the Constitution before you type this stuff?

Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Function: adjective

1 a : precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; "explicit instructions"

The phrase "the right to vote" is in the Constitution.  You do not have to read anything into the Constitution to determine if the right to vote exists; it is readily observable within the Constitution.

I'm good with that explanation and generally agree with it.  You've shown that a right could "exist", but without "enumeration" in the Constitution, it is not explicit and cannot necessarily be considered as Constitutionally protected.  This is where many have a problem.

First, it is enumerated in the Constitution, as the "right to vote" is plainly within the text.  Second, even if you still unreasonably refute this, implied rights are Constitutionally protected.  Again, I'd suggest that you read Roe v. Wade and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.  The Court finds that implied rights are Constitutionally protected.  This is due to the fact that the implication was derived from the Constitution itself.

Again, your quest for a pissing match...  I never challenged any of the above.  You're attempting to make an argument where one does not exist.  It's like challenging the "wetness" of water.  Frustrating and annoying...

There is no pissing match.  You made an incorrect statement about the ability of states to remove voting rights as they see fit.  Because there is federal oversight on the judicial and legislative levels, states can not remove voting rights as they see fit.

Oh...  So now, we're playing the literal game.  I see.

Call it a game if you'd like, but this was simply another instance in which you made a false statement.  You attempted to declare that I had made a statement about never saying "anything" about pedophiles.  In actuality I had agreed that I had mentioned pedophiles, but that I had never made any sort of argument for pedophiles.  If you're going to get butt sore about being called out on making incorrect statements, then don't make them.

This is unbelievable.  Wake me up when you're done espousing this schit...  In this thread, you seemed pretty quick to discredit everyone else's "legitamate reason(s)".  Now, you're throwing this out?

Banning or otherwise limiting homosexuals in the military simply because you find their behavior deviant or immoral is not a legitimate reason.  Ensuring that heterosexual military members are comfortable is not a legitimate reason.  Ensuring the medical safety of military members is a legitimate reason.  However, you point to possibilities and not actualities.  All homosexuals don't have AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other disease.  Do they have a higher chance of contracting some diseases?  Sure, but you also have a higher chance of having more heterosexuals contract HBV due to A) the higher number of transmissions amongst heterosexuals, and B) the far greater number of heterosexuals.  Thus, your medical safety argument based on possibilities and not actualities would lead to us banning heterosexuals because of the potential risk they pose to medical safety.

Seriously, do you hear yourself?  Was it really necessary to walk down that street?

I'd love to hear how you're going to identify a pedophile when they've committed no crime against a child.  Sure, you can continue to ignore my points with ad hominem attacks, but that's not advancing your argument any.

[Kaos]

Do you read the Constitution before you type this stuff?

Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Function: adjective

1 a : precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; "explicit instructions"

The phrase "the right to vote" is in the Constitution.  You do not have to read anything into the Constitution to determine if the right to vote exists; it is readily observable within the Constitution.

Really?  Because right to vote is only discussed in subsequent amendments, not the original Constitution and at no time even in those is the phrase "right to vote" utilized in a manner that supports your position. 

First, it is enumerated in the Constitution, as the "right to vote" is plainly within the text.  Second, even if you still unreasonably refute this, implied rights are Constitutionally protected.  Again, I'd suggest that you read Roe v. Wade and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.  The Court finds that implied rights are Constitutionally protected.  This is due to the fact that the implication was derived from the Constitution itself.

There is no pissing match.  You made an incorrect statement about the ability of states to remove voting rights as they see fit.  Because there is federal oversight on the judicial and legislative levels, states can not remove voting rights as they see fit.

Other than the right to prevent people from voting for reasons of race, color or previous servitude (1870); the right to deny voting privileges based on sex (1920); the right to deny voting for unpaid tax (1964); or to deny those over 18 (1971) the Constitution (and its amendments) doesn't prevent states from barring citizens to vote for any legitimate reason. 

In fact, perhaps you should review Amendment 14:

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

It implicitly (and by your definition, therefore also explicitly) gives states the right to bar citizens from voting as it provides a remedy for what happens when states do. 

[Vandy Vol]

Really?  Because right to vote is only discussed in subsequent amendments, not the original Constitution and at no time even in those is the phrase "right to vote" utilized in a manner that supports your position.

Are you suggesting that the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are not rights or are otherwise "lesser" rights because they're in an Amendment?  The Supreme Court has never stated that Amendments are not part of the Constitution or otherwise less important.

My position is that the right to vote is indeed a right.  The Constitution refers to it as a right and the Supreme Court refers to it as a right.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that the right to vote can not be removed if it violates Constitutional standards or is otherwise not a rational policy.  Thus, my position is very well supported.

Other than the right to prevent people from voting for reasons of race, color or previous servitude (1870); the right to deny voting privileges based on sex (1920); the right to deny voting for unpaid tax (1964); or to deny those over 18 (1971) the Constitution (and its amendments) doesn't prevent states from barring citizens to vote for any legitimate reason.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.  They prevented a state from denying the poor the right to vote despite the fact that there is no Amendment which mentions anything about the poor.

In fact, perhaps you should review Amendment 14:

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Perhaps you should review Supreme Court case law.  They are, afterall, the authoritative figure on constitutional interpretation, and they have determined that states can not remove the right to vote from a group of people for any reason they wish.

[Kaos]

Are you suggesting that the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are not rights or are otherwise "lesser" rights because they're in an Amendment?  The Supreme Court has never stated that Amendments are not part of the Constitution or otherwise less important.

My position is that the right to vote is indeed a right.  The Constitution refers to it as a right and the Supreme Court refers to it as a right.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that the right to vote can not be removed if it violates Constitutional standards or is otherwise not a rational policy.  Thus, my position is very well supported.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.  They prevented a state from denying the poor the right to vote despite the fact that there is no Amendment which mentions anything about the poor.

Perhaps you should review Supreme Court case law.  They are, afterall, the authoritative figure on constitutional interpretation, and they have determined that states can not remove the right to vote from a group of people for any reason they wish.

Ok, so now you say it's not in the Constitution, but has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.  That has nothing to do with one being lesser or greater, it only goes to your inaccuracy. 

Your original contention was that it was very plainly in the Constitution.  It's not.  So you shift to later Supreme Court rulings. 

The Supreme Court has ruled in specific cases, but has not issued any mandate that says voting rights CANNOT be restricted for any reason.  States do have the right to restrict such -- pending SC review, of course -- and you certainly cannot determine how the court will rule the next time (if there is one) this issue is brought before it. 

There has been discussion of restricting people who've had DUI arrests from voting.  The state may determine that if you don't participate in the national healthcare plan you can't vote.  Those who are penalized may petition that their rights have been abridged and could potentially have that case heard by the SC.  Then, perhaps, you'd see yet another ruling. 

To assume as broadly as you do is wrong, however. 

[Vandy Vol]

Ok, so now you say it's not in the Constitution, but has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.  That has nothing to do with one being lesser or greater, it only goes to your inaccuracy. 

Your original contention was that it was very plainly in the Constitution.  It's not.  So you shift to later Supreme Court rulings.

Nope.  I never once said it wasn't in the Constitution.  Stating that the Supreme Court has ruled X does not mean that it is no longer in the Constitution.  In fact, one of the Supreme Court's major roles is to interpret the Constitution.  Therefore, when they make a ruling on something constitutional, they are ruling that it is in the Constitution.  So no, my reliance on the Supreme Court's rulings does not contradict or negate the fact that the right to vote is still in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled in specific cases, but has not issued any mandate that says voting rights CANNOT be restricted for any reason.  States do have the right to restrict such -- pending SC review, of course -- and you certainly cannot determine how the court will rule the next time (if there is one) this issue is brought before it.

If you've ever read a Supreme Court ruling, then you realize that they often make broad rules governing a variety of situations.  Although they ruled on Virginia's specific ban on the poor in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, they also stated the general rule that voting rights can not be removed if it is not a rational policy.  Their ruling further defined constitutional protections for voters; it did not only apply to poor voters.

There has been discussion of restricting people who've had DUI arrests from voting.  The state may determine that if you don't participate in the national healthcare plan you can't vote.  Those who are penalized may petition that their rights have been abridged and could potentially have that case heard by the SC.  Then, perhaps, you'd see yet another ruling. 

According to the Voting Rights Act, these changes would have to be approved by the federal government.  And despite the fact that state legislators make succeed in making such laws, that doesn't make them constitutionally valid.  Laws have been overturned.

[GarMan]

Do you read the Constitution before you type this stuff?

Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Function: adjective

1 a : precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; "explicit instructions"

The phrase "the right to vote" is in the Constitution.  You do not have to read anything into the Constitution to determine if the right to vote exists; it is readily observable within the Constitution. 

Wow...  Are you kidding me?  That's incredible.  You're a master of the American English language in your own mind.  I'm going to let you sit in your own scat for a while. 

First, it is enumerated in the Constitution, as the "right to vote" is plainly within the text. 

Right...  Yeah...  OK... 

There is no pissing match.  You made an incorrect statement about the ability of states to remove voting rights as they see fit.  Because there is federal oversight on the judicial and legislative levels, states can not remove voting rights as they see fit. 

Still pissing...  Of course, this "federal oversight" that you speak of only came later, after the Constitution.  States can still further qualify voters, as we have already discussed.

Call it a game if you'd like, but this was simply another instance in which you made a false statement.  You attempted to declare that I had made a statement about never saying "anything" about pedophiles.  In actuality I had agreed that I had mentioned pedophiles, but that I had never made any sort of argument for pedophiles.  If you're going to get butt sore about being called out on making incorrect statements, then don't make them.

Well, that's just another instance where you're wrong.  I never accused you have making any particular statement, other than the fact that you extended your concept of "civil rights" to groups like homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers and such.  You technically agreed, but then you backpedaled a bit. 

Banning or otherwise limiting homosexuals in the military simply because you find their behavior deviant or immoral is not a legitimate reason.  Ensuring that heterosexual military members are comfortable is not a legitimate reason.  Ensuring the medical safety of military members is a legitimate reason.  However, you point to possibilities and not actualities.  All homosexuals don't have AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other disease.  Do they have a higher chance of contracting some diseases?  Sure, but you also have a higher chance of having more heterosexuals contract HBV due to A) the higher number of transmissions amongst heterosexuals, and B) the far greater number of heterosexuals.  Thus, your medical safety argument based on possibilities and not actualities would lead to us banning heterosexuals because of the potential risk they pose to medical safety.

So now, you're the judge, doctor and final say on this.  I see...   

I'd love to hear how you're going to identify a pedophile when they've committed no crime against a child.  Sure, you can continue to ignore my points with ad hominem attacks, but that's not advancing your argument any.

The stupidity of your position applies to homosexuals in the same exact way.  How do you know that someone is a <fill-in-the-blank>?  They have to tell you, and if they don't admit to it, they're lying.  You had to get all goofy by bringing crime into this.  That makes it a completely different situation. 

[GH2001]

Nope.  I never once said it wasn't in the Constitution.  Stating that the Supreme Court has ruled X does not mean that it is no longer in the Constitution.  In fact, one of the Supreme Court's major roles is to interpret the Constitution.  Therefore, when they make a ruling on something constitutional, they are ruling that it is in the Constitution.  So no, my reliance on the Supreme Court's rulings does not contradict or negate the fact that the right to vote is still in the Constitution.

If you've ever read a Supreme Court ruling, then you realize that they often make broad rules governing a variety of situations.  Although they ruled on Virginia's specific ban on the poor in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, they also stated the general rule that voting rights can not be removed if it is not a rational policy.  Their ruling further defined constitutional protections for voters; it did not only apply to poor voters.

According to the Voting Rights Act, these changes would have to be approved by the federal government.  And despite the fact that state legislators make succeed in making such laws, that doesn't make them constitutionally valid.  Laws have been overturned.

Dude - do you ever get any work done?

[Vandy Vol]

Still pissing...  Of course, this "federal oversight" that you speak of only came later, after the Constitution.  States can still further qualify voters, as we have already discussed.

It's only pissing if you don't like facts.  Regardless, the Voting Rights Act was challenged on its constitutionality and it was found valid.  The fact that a law was developed after the Constitution does not mean it has no authority, nor does it mean that it is unconstitutional.  No matter how much you want to beat around the bush, your statement that any state can regulate voting as they wish is simply not true.

Well, that's just another instance where you're wrong.  I never accused you have making any particular statement, other than the fact that you extended your concept of "civil rights" to groups like homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers and such.  You technically agreed, but then you backpedaled a bit.

If you want to keep arguing this, then I'm just going to have to point out what exactly was said, because you apparently don't remember anything you've previously stated.

I’m only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children.

But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers.  You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Didn't you throw this at me a few posts ago?

Nope.  At one point I stated that I have no clue as to whether a pedophile's affinity toward children is genetic or not.  I also mentioned pedophiles while listing off groups of people to make a point, but I did not state anything about pedophiles in particular.  I've never made a statement that pedophiles should be able to teach, serve in the military or any other activity.

You're nuckin' futs!  You've just contradicted yourself again!!!  You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above.

You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers.  Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in anything.  Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.

If you still think that I'm somehow contradicting myself, playing "literal games," or some other nonsense after reading the above exchange, then I'm afraid you're beyond help when it comes to comprehending what a sentence written in English says.

So now, you're the judge, doctor and final say on this.  I see...   

You look at some stats from the CDC, draw a conclusion about why homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, and your final determination is self declared as the correct conclusion.  You expect this to be accepted as gospel and that no one should have a differing opinion, and if they do, then they're blubbering idiots who you proceed to assume think they know everything.  Yet when I look at stats from the CDC and draw a conclusion about why homosexuals should be in the military, I'm labeled as the judge, doctor and final say?

The stupidity of your position applies to homosexuals in the same exact way.  How do you know that someone is a <fill-in-the-blank>?  They have to tell you, and if they don't admit to it, they're lying.  You had to get all goofy by bringing crime into this.  That makes it a completely different situation. 

Then how exactly do you plan to prevent homosexuals from entering the military?  How can you trust the CDC stats that you have paraded about if we don't know who is a homosexual, much less who is a homosexual with X disease?  You're adamantly professing that they're going to bring a plague upon the military, yet you admit that you have no way of identifying them, and therefore can't prevent them from spreading this assumed plague of epic proportions.

[Vandy Vol]

Dude - do you ever get any work done?

Yup.  The majority of work that I do can be done at any time of the day.

And, of course, the majority of my posts come after 1:00PM.  This is more than can be said for some people...

 

[GarMan]

It's only pissing if you don't like facts... 

Wrong again, Sweetheart...  It's pissing when you spin the discussion way off-topic in an attempt to prove some silly semi-related position. 

If you want to keep arguing this, then I'm just going to have to point out what exactly was said, because you apparently don't remember anything you've previously stated.
<snip>
If you still think that I'm somehow contradicting myself, playing "literal games," or some other nonsense after reading the above exchange, then I'm afraid you're beyond help when it comes to comprehending what a sentence written in English says.

Way to go with the "quote" function!  Some people still haven't figured it out in here.  The only problem is that you forgot what initiated my little jab...

It's not about affording one group more protection; it's about affording each group the same protection.  When you single out one group and take away a right or privilege that other groups have, you're affording those other groups more protection.  Or, more accurately I guess, you're affording those other groups more privileges/rights.  The only acceptable manner in which you can remove the rights or privileges of one group is for a legitimate purpose. 

Followed by...

Hey Buttercup...  I never said "more protection."  You’re arguing with that straw-tiger again.  I'm only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children.  I mean, there's no "legitimate" reason for preventing them from doing so.  You can't predict that a pedophile will do anything wrong.  After all, that's just an assumption at best...  "There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication" that anything improper would occur.

So, piss and whine all you want...  Rather than refuting my jab, you went down some silly criminal argument that's completely unrelated to this.  Wacko, if you ask me...

You look at some stats from the CDC, draw a conclusion about why homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, and your final determination is self declared as the correct conclusion.  You expect this to be accepted as gospel and that no one should have a differing opinion, and if they do, then they're blubbering idiots who you proceed to assume think they know everything.  Yet when I look at stats from the CDC and draw a conclusion about why homosexuals should be in the military, I'm labeled as the judge, doctor and final say?

Along the way, through our little exchange, I've said that I'm no expert several times.  Rather than accept that, you challenged my positions with your own rants, points and specs of research.  I said that I was leaving the final say with the General, and you're still making this about me.  Perhaps, if you didn't rant like a know-it-all expert on everything under the sun, you'd have a little more credibility on the board. 

Then how exactly do you plan to prevent homosexuals from entering the military?  How can you trust the CDC stats that you have paraded about if we don't know who is a homosexual, much less who is a homosexual with X disease?  You're adamantly professing that they're going to bring a plague upon the military, yet you admit that you have no way of identifying them, and therefore can't prevent them from spreading this assumed plague of epic proportions.

You've lost me.  You were the one who said...  Oh nevermind...  I'm done fooling with your silly-assed pissing matches.  Grow up.  Experience some life... successes and failures.  Establish some perspective.  And, let me know when you're ready to discuss something without Googling for the latest lamestream opinion. 

[Jumbo]

I want to give ya'll a huge fist up the ass, Jumbo style. For mastering the quote function.