I just told you . With your assertion of positive law system and I gave an example as to what I am talking about.
You are not making any sense whatsoever. Quote my specific words you disagree with, and then explain your specific disagreement with those words.
I gave you an example where The Constitution specifically limits a particular right to a US Citizen and cited the syntax that was used - such restrictive syntax i.e. “No person shall” is missing from amendments that you cited.
And obviously, throughout history, it has been interpreted my way because non-citizens voting is something that has been permitted - extensively. Literally in every century since United States was born non-citizens have voted.
For the second time, quote my specific words you disagree with, and then explain your specific disagreement with those words.
JWK
I’ve done that. I’m now going to do it again but this time I am going to narrow a post of yours I quoted before a bit to highlight the specific, per your request.
I disagree. Look at this text. Article 1, Section 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This was clearly written to explicitly restrict the right to be a representative to those and only those who meet the conditions described above. Now compare the way this is written to the amendments that you have cited.
Had your amendments said something like “No person shall have the right to vote in local, state and federal elections who is not a Citizen of the United States” then you would obviously have a clear case
No, you have not. You make sweeping comments to cloud what exactly is at issue, and that is a very old and tired stupid debating trick.
JWK
Your above rambling has already been addressed as follows:
When you find those provisions granting the right to vote to noncitizens as a general rule across the United States, feel free to post them. Additionally, how about posting those legislative acts showing foreigners have been voting across the country for the past hundred years?
The fact is, “citizens”, not foreigners, have had the statutory right to vote across the United States, and this has been the law of the land for generations as applied to federal, state and local elections, with the handful of radical exceptions I already posted. The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.
JWK
“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).”
I addressed specific statements you’ve made ,thoroughly explained why I disagree and cited a specific example in The Constitution where my disagreement is highlighted. Several times.
Additionally, I explained how there’s precedent in my interpretation, something that has been manifested in every century since 18th.
I am unable to find provisions that you ask for. I am also unable to find provisions in the Constitution explicitly granting the right to citizens or non-citizens to use a telephone or a computer. Does this mean we are all acting illegally every day ?
As far as “law of the land for generations” , this has already been addressed numerous times. Every century since 18th, foreigners have voted in elections.
Now you are making stuff up!
So tell me, do you disagree with the following which I wrote above:
our system is one of “positive law” and defined and limited grants of power.
Under our “positive law” system, laws are adopted to accomplish a specific purpose stated which thereby limits the scope of such law.
Is that what you disagree with?
JWK
And that is because under the rule of law, citizens, and not foreigners, have had the statutory right to vote across the United States during the past century, and this applies to federal, state and local elections, with a handful of radical exceptions.
The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.
JWK
“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).”
Yes. I’ve carefully explained this complete with a specific example and highlighted the syntax of my disagreement as well as precedent where this has been manifested.
I think five times already.
Yes to what? Be specific.
I am also unable to find provisions in the Constitution explicitly granting the right to citizens or non-citizens to use a telephone or a computer. Does this mean we are all acting illegally every day ?
“Handful of radical exceptions” - this has literally been happening since 1776 in many states.
Here is some history:
Yes to the question that you asked in previous post. As to why:
I disagree. Look at this text. Article 1, Section 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
This was clearly written to explicitly restrict the right to be a representative to those and only those who meet the conditions described above. Now compare the way this is written to the amendments that you have cited.
Had your amendments said something like “No person shall have the right to vote in local, state and federal elections who is not a Citizen of the United States” then you would obviously have a clear case
That is because our system is based on positive law.
JWK
Then how do you explain the following ?
This clearly was written not in a positive manner but in a manner where syntax explicitly restricts that which is only delegated to persons who meet the qualifications outlined.
There is nothing to explain. What you quote was intended to accomplish a specific purpose, therein stated, and limits the scope of such law unless changed by a constitutional amendment.
JWK
And what is even worse are the Socialist Revolutionaries who now control the Democrat Party Leadership and are the same type of revolutionaries who took over Cuba and now rule there with an iron fist. Tens of thousands of those types are now living in NYC who are foreign nationals, and the Democrat Party Leadership, to remain in power, want to allow these foreigners to vote so the Socialist Revolutionary wing of the Democrat Party can move forward with their socialist revolutionary ideology and rule NYC with an iron fist just as they now do in Cuba.
JWK
“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).”
It shows a particularly resentful sense of entitlement to equate
With
