I guess this guy, Dorf, a nationally recognized law professor from Cornell, is wrong-wrong-wrong, if I understand the genius of 
correctly.
Dorf is not on the Supreme Court, and thus his interpretation of the Constitution is not authoritative. You've heard of the Supreme Court, right? It might help if you actually read the case as well, instead of taking Dorf's comments out of context. The Court had this to say about the right to vote:
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections[T]he right to vote in federal elections is conferred by Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution (United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314-315)
It is argued that the right to vote in state elections is implicit, particularly by reason of the First Amendment, and that it may not constitutionally be conditioned upon the payment of a tax or fee. Cf. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113. We do not stop to canvass the relation between voting and political expression. For it is enough to say that, once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bush v. GoreWhen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.
As I've said over and over, the right to vote is referenced in the Constitution; the Supreme Court even declares that the right to vote in federal elections is conferred by the Constitution explicitly. Regardless of the fact that the right to vote in state elections is granted by states (and can be removed by states), this does not mean it is not a right.
Your statement that the right to vote doesn't exist was false, plain and simple. Federal voting rights are conferred explicitly in the Constitution. Furthermore, states have granted the right, and thus it exists. Your statement that a state can remove the right to vote for a group of citizens as it sees fit was false, plain and simple. Not only did the case law that I submitted state that, but the case to which you cite states it as well: "Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."
You'll note that while the right emerges from the state's authority, once granted it becomes constitutionally protected by means of equal protection. This is why there is federal oversight of the state's alterations to voting laws. Maybe you don't agree with the judicial system's stance on the existence of a right to vote and the constitutional protections afforded to those with the right to vote, but it's been plainly stated by the Supreme Court.
338 Replies
58976 Views