Skip to main content

Over the years especially recently and only a few days ago here, I’ve heard, seen and paid no attention to the declaration that the Constitution nowhere explicitly creates a right to vote.  Enough!

THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS…TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED…[and] CONGRESS SHALL … ENFORCE…BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION.”  Articles of Amendment XV, XIX and XXVI (emphasis added).   These declarations refer to an extant right yea “entitlement” to vote on behalf of citizens of the United States.

In my civics classes in junior high school and high school as well as my constitutional law course in college, it was stated that amendments to the Constitution have all the dignity and force of law of the Constitution to which they are added, that is, they are the supreme law of the land.  In law school nobody ever bothered to mention that, but much study was given to that great body of law created by the federal courts pursuant to those amendments and most especially to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments (though that may now have changed sadly).  Even Professordoctors Scalia and Roberts seem to accept this premise at least as to parts of the first two of those amendments.

That the national legislature is commanded by exercise of its judgment to enforce that right cannot be gainsaid (as courts in my day used to say).   The only question thus becomes whether the law is appropriate to the authorization, that is, does it address an impediment to the exercise of the right?  If it does, it is “appropriate.”  As the Court has stated many times, it cannot supplant Congress’s judgment with its own.  Nor does it matter that other means of redress might have been more or even as appropriate.  Stated even more simply, is the means adopted inappropriate?

As noted, Congress created a considerable body of evidence demonstrating the continued need for the renewal of this statute.  Unless one were comatose, a condition which even I do not claim afflicted  Justice Scalia or “this Chief,” the last election amply demonstrated the fact that the targeted states continued to require address by this Act.  Further, as Justice Sotomayor noted, the county that is the party to this suit has filth on its hands.  That other states acted to impede the exercise of the entitlement does not render the law inappropriate.  On the other hand, the Court conceivably could find that equal protection of the laws required that the law be uniformly applied throughout the nation.  As much as that would be appropriate, the mere suggestion likely would curdle the urine of the conservative Justices.  Nevertheless, as much as they might like to vitiate the specific provision and eventually the Act in its entirety, it is likely that one or more has to realize that it must not be done (that is not to say that he/they will act upon that recognition unfortunately).

Finally, it was hypothesized that Chief Justice Roberts could not bring himself to be part of a five/four decision voiding the Affordable Care Act.  If that played any part in his ultimate decision, perhaps it is just as likely that he would not want to be on the wrong side of history in this instance however much he might detest the law.  Moreover, should Justice Kennedy the ditherer decide to affirm the specific provision (whether out of some misguided concern for his place in history—a done deal, Your Worship!), I believe that Justice Roberts will join making the result six to three.  This is not a prediction because neither has the integrity we should have been assured at their confirmations.  It is at best a fantasy, but it seemed worth mentioning if only to tease.

Originally posted to shagnaski on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 03:47 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site