I suspect that's not what Mursilis was saying, but rather that state law places restrictions on people who can vote and provided that those restrictions are not prohibited by the constitution (US or state), they're allowed to stand.
I suspect a better argument in this case might be that requiring people to have the means to rent or own a home is in effect a tax of sorts, which the US Constitution clearly prohibits.
So going back to the claim that "the government is constitutionally mandated to allow every citizen the opportunity to vote," it's not too much of stretch to say that holds true because: 1) the branches of government are mandated to follow the constitution, 2) voting is a basic, constitutionally-protected right, so 3) citizens must be allowed to exercise the rights.
As it stands now, the argument is often made that a citizen can vote unless xxxxxxxx holds true. "xxxxxxxx" has been "fails to pay a poll tax", "is a woman", and "isn't 21 yet". "xxxxxxxx" by some state laws is "has committed a felony". Some of the posters here feel "xxxxxxxx" ought to include "can prove they do not have mental disorder", or "can show a voter ID", or "is not a drug addict". Part of the problem is that just as you may feel you are morally right in disallowing drug addicts from voting, there were those that felt the same way about disallowing women from voting. Is it better to err on the side of exclusivity or inclusion? Which is worse in your book, a fraudulent vote or stripping someone of their rights?
I suspect a better argument in this case might be that requiring people to have the means to rent or own a home is in effect a tax of sorts, which the US Constitution clearly prohibits.
So going back to the claim that "the government is constitutionally mandated to allow every citizen the opportunity to vote," it's not too much of stretch to say that holds true because: 1) the branches of government are mandated to follow the constitution, 2) voting is a basic, constitutionally-protected right, so 3) citizens must be allowed to exercise the rights.
As it stands now, the argument is often made that a citizen can vote unless xxxxxxxx holds true. "xxxxxxxx" has been "fails to pay a poll tax", "is a woman", and "isn't 21 yet". "xxxxxxxx" by some state laws is "has committed a felony". Some of the posters here feel "xxxxxxxx" ought to include "can prove they do not have mental disorder", or "can show a voter ID", or "is not a drug addict". Part of the problem is that just as you may feel you are morally right in disallowing drug addicts from voting, there were those that felt the same way about disallowing women from voting. Is it better to err on the side of exclusivity or inclusion? Which is worse in your book, a fraudulent vote or stripping someone of their rights?
Facebook
Twitter