Let’s Get A Little Practical: A Woman’s Right To Politics

by William K. Shearer

In 1955, shortly after I came home from Army duty, a fellow in our community ran for the local school board. He was a genuine nut case, an atheist, and a virulent racist. One thing he wanted to do was repeal the right of women to vote, a right guaranteed to them by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. he wasn’t bashful about stating his views. He ran ads in the papers setting it all out in gory detail.

I didn’t pay much attention to him. This was California, and we were used to harvesting fruits and nuts.

But the lady who was to become my wife read the ads and was outraged. She came to me, and wanted to know what I was going to do about this guy that wanted to take away her right to vote.

“Nothing,” I told her. “He isn’t my candidate. I didn’t ask him to run. He won’t get elected to anything, anyway, and he’ll serve a useful purpose.”

“What useful purpose?” she asked.

“Well,” I said, “every so often you need to find out the number of real kooks you have in town, and the number of votes this guy gets will tell you that.”

That was exactly the way it worked out. We found out that we had less than 150 real screwballs in the district, as opposed to thousands of more enlightened voters.

That election also brought home the reality that no one goes anywhere in politics when he starts his campaign by alienating half or more of the voters on a long settled non-issue such as women’s suffrage.

Surprisingly, the idea that women shouldn’t have the right to vote still surfaces once in a while. Currently when it comes up, it is usually tied to some religious belief that we should return to the patriarchal days of the Old Testament.

Getting rid of women’s voting rights isn’t an idea that is ever going anywhere, but it is an idea that can embarrass and bring down any party or candidate that toys with it. Half of the voters are women, and women are just as competent as men to cast intelligent ballots. Attacking a woman’s right to vote isn’t any more attractive when tied to religious dogma than it was when the atheist brought it up in 1955.

Patriarchal days may have been great, but I don’t foresee any rush of people to live in tents in their front yards, while their houses sit vacant, or to herd sheep and goats on the asphalt pavement. The zealots will probably have a better chance with the sheep and the goats than they will trying to take away a woman’s right to full participation in the modern political process. As the saying goes, hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

98 Responses to “Let’s Get A Little Practical: A Woman’s Right To Politics”

  1. globalist_elitist Says:

    Not to imgugn on Mr. Shearer’s integrity, but I wonder if it truly were an atheist running on that platform in 1955. For one, who the hell would admit to being an atheist in 1955? Not someone running for office. If he were a known atheist, then that was probably the reason he got so few votes; not his racism or opposition to women’s rights. This sounds like a “Rich Dad” parable; Mr. Shearer is showing his opposition to VISIBLE racism and sexism within his party by aligning it to atheism in a story that may not have actually happened.

    “I don’t foresee any rush of people to live in tents in their front yards, while their houses sit vacant, or to herd sheep and goats on the asphalt pavement.”

    And yet this is the basic economic agenda of the Religious Right. Mr. Shearer was right on.

  2. Cody Quirk Says:

    Bill was never part of the Religious Right. Thw RR stuck with the GOP, he didn’t.

    Did he say in the article that the guy was a ‘outspoken’ atheist?

  3. Yosemite1967 Says:

    I would submit that the founders set up a representative republic, rather than a democracy. The father REPRESENTED the family, just as city council members REPRESENT their precincts, and county commissioners, state legislators, and members of congress each REPRESENT their respective districts.

  4. Cody Quirk Says:

    But we have the 19th Amend.
    And where men fail in politics do women take their place.

  5. Joe Says:

    One does not have to go as far back as Biblical times to find a patriarchal society. It was only in the very recent past that the nineteenth amendment was passed. That hardly makes it “long settled.” The sixteenth and seventeenth amendment were ratified longer ago than the nineteenth, but the Constitution Party has no problem objecting to the “long settled” issues of a federal income tax and the direct election of senators. For the first three hundred years or so of American history, women did not vote, and America was blessed. The way Bill made it sound, every American woman is a feminist. I agree with Howard Phillips: the nineteenth amendment is one of the worst amendments ever passed and it was the precursor to abortion on demand and many of the other ills confronting America today.

  6. Cody Quirk Says:

    Were did Howard say that?

    And we actually live in a ‘real’ world Joe. There is no place in the US Constitution for your interpretations of the Bible to be made into civil law.

  7. Anthony Distler Says:

    Wow…that was one of the dumbest God damn things I have ever read in my life.

    I was never a fan of Howard Phillips, but I hate the man if he did indeed say that the 19th amendment was the worst one passed. We can’t have a society that claims to govern over all people when all people can not participate in the process. If women aren’t allowed to vote, then women should be allowed to form their own nation and pass their own laws…and I bet you that means abortion would be an after school activity.

    I think abortion should be outlawed, but I also stand with the Nevada IP when I say that there should be exceptions, especially if the life of the mother is at risk is the baby were to be born. But hey, I guess basic logic will never work in Joe’s theocratic society, where women stay home, barefoot and pregnant.

  8. Gary Odom Says:

    This is a very good article by my old friend Bill, but didn’t you all just beat this subject to death about two articles ago? Well, what the hell.

    Joe, my mother votes. She is the one who convinced me to support Goldwater in 1964 when I was 12 years old. She is an American patriot. She also is a student of the bible and is a better Christian than a whole slew of you “holier than thou” types. Are you saying that because she votes, that she is a “feminist” and an abomination in the eyes of God? By the way, she also worked so that she and my Dad could afford to provide for me. Does that make her a “feminist” as well? And are you saying that it is because my mother can vote and participate in politics that abortion is legal? Are you saying that, Joe?

    If you told my mom to her face that she is a “feminist,” and that actually she, as a woman, is too stupid to be allowed to vote, she’d likely chase you down the road with her weed wacker!

  9. Joe Says:


    He said that in a speech to at the Witherspoon School of Law and Government a few years ago. I received a casette tape of the speech as a delegate to the Constitution Party’s convention in 2004. My quote is a paraphrase from memory, but I can tell you that it acurately captures the gist of his comments. He went into a bit more detail, describing his belief in “one family, one vote” and expanding further upon the negative consequences of the nineteenth amendment. Didn’t you get that memo?

    You say that there is no place in the Constitution for it, but the framers saw fit to leave it to the states to decide whether women should vote of not. It was only as a result of twentieth century feminism that a constitutional amendment forced all states to allow women to vote. Like the rest of the Constitution, that amendment can be repealed. I agree with Bill that achieving that would not be easy, but neither will repealing the sixteenth or seventeenth amendments or most of the rest of the Constitution Party’s agenda. Just because something is a “long-settled” issue is no reason to acquiesce to it. Our opponents claim that the right to abortion is a “long settled” issue. America is only a few centuries old. No issue we face is all that “long settled” in the realm of politics.


    Just because women did not vote that doesn’t mean they did not participate in the political process. Women have a long history of political partication in America. Would you say, “if children aren’t allowed to vote, then children should be allowed to form their own nation and pass their own laws?” From a Christian perspective such as Howard’s, fathers are to represent their wives and children in government. When a son marries and heads his own family he joins civil society and may vote. Under biblical patriarchy the only women who arguably would be entitled to the franchise would be heads of households (ie widows). An unmarried woman would be represented by her father’s vote as long as he lived and she remained unmarried. Certainly wives’ and children can influence how their husbands and fathers vote - perhaps considerably. But from a Christian worldview ultimately voting decisions, like other decisions, are the husband and father’s to make.

  10. Joe Says:


    Yes, I am saying that if your mother works outside of the home and votes she is a feminist. Moreover, that is what Howard Phillips said in his speech to the Witherspoon School of Law and Government: the nineteenth amendment should be repealed and women voting is largely responsible for the problem of abortion in America and many other ills. Gary, were you at the convention in 2004, and if so did you not receive the casette tape I am talking about? If you haven not listened to it, please do so and tell me I am mischaracterizing what Howard said. If you don’t have a copy, I doubt it would be too hard for you to get your hands on one.

    Until I heard Howard explain it, I don’t think I had ever given the issue that much thought. I think it was about the same time I first heard Howard’s speech that I also first read Rev. Einwechter’s sermon on the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates and I started thinking, “you know this makes a lot of sense.” After a prayerful study of scripture I concluded they were right. Now if my own sincere religious faith leads your mother to try kill me with her weed wacker, that is a consequence I am willing to accept, because the consequences of disobeying God’s Word would be much worse. I even give you my word that if your mother does try to murder me, I will defend myself as best I can, with as little harm to her as I possibly can.

  11. Anthony Distler Says:

    You are one of the greatest misminded people I’ve ever seen own a computer. This “biblical patriarchy ” that you live in is not the country I live in, and I hope to God it’s not the country we ever live in. If we start to become a nation based on a bunch of false rules written in a book some two thousand years ago, what makes us better then the Taliban or the other fundementalist Islamic nations in which you despise, besides the fact that they have a different imaginary friend then you?

    “Would you say, “if children aren’t allowed to vote, then children should be allowed to form their own nation and pass their own laws?” ”
    Perhaps not, but I do believe in lowering the voting age that we have set right now. Issues like social security and student loans are going to effect current teenagers more then they effect the older generation.

    I hope the rest of the Consitution Party does not share in Joe’s views. What I’m hearing from Joe is that he’s a sexist homophobe. Is there racism in there as well, Joe?

  12. Trent Hill Says:


    Dont take Joe’s wording on this. I can’t almost garauntee Howard Phillips didn’t say that.
    Howard Phillips supported Mary Starrett as the CP’s communications director, as has long worked with Janine Hanson on political matters.

    As far as Joe, he doesn’t speak for the CP at all. And does not represent our views, AT ALL.

  13. SovereignMN Says:

    This is why platforms for marginal/fringe issues need to remain neutral. I personally believe that West Virginia, according to the constitution, should not be a state. But what good would it be for me to push for that to be included in the CP platform and run a campaign on such an issue that 90% of the people disagree and another 9.5% don’t care about? It’d be pointless. So regardless of how someone feels about West Virginia’s statehood, I can support them.

    Joe…What I’m about to say I mean in all sincerity since I do believe that men are to be the head of their households (though I don’t share your view regarding women’s suffrage). This is a fight that would be better served if waged within your own church congregation. If the Bible does back up your argument then try to convince those of your own congregation to follow your persuasion. That audience would be more receptive and less hostile to your message than the general population. If/When you convince them, then take your fight to your denomination, etc.

    This is the type of issue that where it is futile to fight in the political arena and you’d be better served fighting it in the church. I imagine you are going to run into heavy resistance there as well.

  14. Joe Says:


    It makes some kind of sense to me that a man who wants minors to vote would not object to women voting either. Regarding your more general point about the Taliban, I recommend this recent editorial, http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2719, to
    whit, “a Christian theocracy would have nothing in common with radical Islamic states.” I am neither a sexist, a homophobe, nor a racist.

    Trent, I can assure you that Howard most certainly did say it. If you doubt me, ask him. I suppose some of you are on speaking terms with him, or at least will have the opportunity to speak to him in the future. If and when you do, ask him, “Howard, what do you think of the nineteenth amendment?” I think many of you will be surprised at his response. If he he tells you he thinks its jim-dandy, he has changed his mind since 2004 when I heard him severely criticize it and call for its repeal with my own ears. But I doubt he will.

    Sovereign, I certainly agree with you that much of the Christian church and many Christian families have gone astray when it comes to the biblical doctrine of the headship of man and there is been much work to be done there. I am pleased that in my church, only male heads of households are eligible to serve as, and vote for, pastors and elders. But clearly for those of us who believe that the nineteenth amendment should be repealed, it is necessary to work within the realm of civil government to achieve that goal. Like I said, I agree with Bill that, as with much of our agenda, it will be difficult. Perhaps the first step is to able to discuss it reasonably. Howard and other Constitution Party leaders layed the groundwork for a dialogue on the subject, not me. It is not an issue I spend much time on, other than trying to encourage Godly men to run for local office so we hopefully have at least a few candidates that meet the biblical criteria for civil magistrates.

  15. Trent Hill Says:


    Regardless of how Phillips feels on the issue (and I still don’t believe your reports) it is not rational.

  16. Anthony Distler Says:

    Women don’t have a right to vote and you’ve taken hard stances on homosexuality. And you’re neither a sexist or a homophobe.

    Yeah, and Don Imus ISN’T a complete bafoon.

  17. globalist_elitist Says:

    The father does not “represent” the family, you collectivist asshole. Each invidual represents himself or herself.

    Constitution Party = Fascist collectivists.

    These neanderthalic morons are actually having a serious debate over whether or not women should be allowed to vote.


  18. Trent Hill Says:


    Most CPers don’t believe that.
    And no,we aren’t. The CPers are basically saying “you’re idiots” as are the Libertarians and Distler.

  19. Anthony Distler Says:

    As much as I may disagree with the Constitution Party, I’m not going to sit here and accuse them of taking a sexist stand against women. I’m pretty sure this is just Joe and his band of crazies.

  20. Trent Hill Says:

    It is.

  21. Cody Quirk Says:

    Correct. Joe doesn’t speak for the CP, even though he tries to. Never mind he is no longer with the national CP anymore.

    If Howard supported Mary Starrett, then no matter how he feels personally on the 19th Amendment, he doesn’t publically support abolishing it.

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    And I wouldn’t be a member of or even support the CP if they had ‘abolishing the 19th Amendment’ in their platform.

  23. globalist_elitist Says:

    The fringe speaks for the collective, though. Political parties - whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. - are always characterized by their most fringe ideas, at least by their opponents, and there is always some truth to those characterizations.

    And the opinion is not exactly “fringe.” The founder of the party and its two-time presidential candidate holds it! A party elder thought it serious enough of an issue to write an essay against it. Would this ever happen, say, in the Green Party? The Libertarians? The Democrats or Republicans? No. You could imagine a Green Party essay against reparations for slavery or in opposition to a guaranteed national income. Why? Because a “fringe” (more like a majority) of its members believe in those things. They wouldn’t write essays about the execution of conservatives or the forced sterilization of Christians because not even the wildest wackos of the party believe in those things. Denying women the right to vote is just as extreme.

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    I can agree with that.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    No. The founder of the party and it’s three time presidential candidate SUPPOSEDLY holds it, according to an enemy of the party who has constantly tried to bring that party down.

    I would also disagree that the fringe defines a party. The public, in general, thinks the Green party is an environmentally conscientious leftist group. Not a group who bombs animal testing clinics.
    They think of libertarians are small government advocates, or even anarchists. But not violent anarchists.
    They don’t think of the pro-life movement in terms of the Army of God who bombs abortion clinics (I ever find one of those arseholes, i’ll rip em apart with my bear hands).

    I will agree it gives us a bad image. And if I ever hear the issue come up seriously, im gone.

  26. John Robillard Says:

    First, the fringe does NOT speak for the party (the platform does). Otherwise the Democratic Party is pro-life by virue of the fact that Jim Oberstar is pro-life.

    Second, what Howard Phillips says in NOT a party platform plank. Sorry, but people are welcome to have personal opinions - even if they happen to be in influential places in the party - without representing the party with every flippant utterence. Besides, I’m guessing that if it is true indeed what Phillips is alleged to have said (which wouldn’t suprise me), that there was a bit of hyperbole involved, as has been the case in many a politician’s stump speech. (Does he really believe the 19th is worse than say, the 16th or 17th?)

    I’ve had occassion to disagree with Mr. Phillips before. On this particular subject - in my eight years of activism now - I’ve honsestly never heard of anyone who believes that women ought to be disenfranchised, except for a host of people who are NOT MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY any more, like the lone provocaeur in this “discussion”.

  27. SovereignMN Says:

    “Sorry, but people are welcome to have personal opinions - even if they happen to be in influential places in the party - without representing the party with every flippant utterence. ”

    A good reminder to all.

  28. Gary Odom Says:


    Despite the fact that I disagree with almost everything you say, and I am doing everything in my power to provide a sane CP alternative in NY, I must admit that you always conduct yourself as a gentleman within this portion of cyberspace, so I will tell my mom not to chase you down the road with her weed-wacker. But she is still upset with you for implying that she is going to Hell just because she has had a job and votes!!

    And by the way, not only did Howard Phillips (and all of us in the CP) support Mary Starrett for Governor of Oregon, but so did one Michael Anthony Peroutka, who you seem to feel you have to remind me of.
    I am not saying that Michael Peroutka is going to Hell for supporting Mary Starrett for Governor, are you?

    And finally, if your ballot only includes Barrack Obama, Rudy Gulliani and Mary Starrett, can I assume that you will be voting for Obama or Gulliani or not voting—or casting a meaningless write-in for some male?

  29. Chris Fluharty Says:


    I am sorry sir but you need a serious history lesson. You are wrong when you said women did not vote for 300 hundred years. Women voted in the Early Republic. Due to some Dowry laws in places like Virgina they owned property. The requirement for voting was property ownership not gender. So when a man dies and the property was transferred to the women she was then allowed to vote and did. Not all states did this. Most of the South did but the Puritan and Quakers never allowed it in the North. Try reading a book now and again you might learn something. Do not just repeat what you heard, but find out facts before you try to ridicule someone else. BTW I am a college History professor besides being a pastor, so do not try to sell me your kool-aid. So the Yankee North is hardly all of America.

  30. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Anthony D- Did you know that if you are a white male you have no Constitutional right to vote specified. Yet blacks and women do. Why? The 19th was unnecessary as it is still today. It also ignores the 10th amendment. So I disagree with your statements. I also disagree with your interpretation that 100% no exceptions is a theocratic idea. You comment makes me wonder if you have even read our US constitution. The 5th Amendment say all persons have a right to LIFE, liberty and property and that cannot be taken w/o due process. So having an exception takes the Rights of the unborn. If anything the Mormon beliefs that is held by the Nevada core is more theocratic. That is unless you do not believe life begins at conception. And if you do not then why not kill all babies? I am no Theocrat but I still believe in 100% no exceptions.

  31. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Gary- Titus 2:5is a commandment by Christ for women not to work outside the home. While this should not be law, it is indeed a law of Christ. A women’s job is to help the spouse and care and educate the kids. She can work, but it must be from home (Proverbs 31). If they sent you to public schools or a daycare they were denying their faith and rebeling against God by doing so. This is not my opinion but the Word of God. If a Women is childless and/ or spouse-less then of course they are free to provide for thier persons since we no longer have the family structure we once had. But this has nothing to do with politics. They can and should vote and “in my opinion” not run for office until they have an empty nest. But i agree with you that a women is not a feminist just because they vote or work and that them doing so has nothing to do with abortion. When we had Roe V Wade there were all males and we still has a pretty male dominated society so that is an excuse by the TAVers.

  32. globalist_elitist Says:

    Not true. No one has a constitutional right to vote. States decide what qualifies people to vote. The Constitution and its amendments only specify under what basis that this right may NOT be denied.

    If blacks and women have the “right” to vote in the Constitution, then so do people over 18, since a later amendment prohibited states from denying people 18 or over from voting on the basis of age.

  33. Chris Fluharty Says:

    BTW- My statements on women working at home is a commandment of Christ does not reflect nor should it be implied that the CP of Missouri somehow holds that stance. Our state Chairman is a women. I know how to keep my faith and my politics separate. I would go to battle with her and for her any day of the week. In fact I had to on TAV when they slandered her and the state party on their blog. The bible is to sacred to be polluted by politics.

  34. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Those people groups cannot be denied their right to vote unless they forfeit it somehow, ie break the law. By your reasoning a state could pass a law prohibiting them from voting.

  35. Chris Fluharty Says:

    States only have jurisdiction for voting but their laws cannot deny a legal voter from voting. Can you be more specific on your reasoning.

  36. globalist_elitist Says:

    You are correct in saying there is no constitutional guarantee for voting rights. This is why, in some states, ex-cons are not allowed to vote. When you are an ex-con, you do not forfeit your right to free speech, but you can be restricted from voting because there is no guarantee of that right in the Constitution.

    Amendment XV protects white people from losing their right to vote on the basis of race just as much as it does black people: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    Amendment XIX protects men from losing their right to vote on the basis of gender just as much as it does as women: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

    Nowhere do these amendments say anything about a parituclar race or gender. They do not give black men and white women rights that are not enjoyed by white men, nor do they offer them any additional protections. YOU ARE 100% WRONG IN SAYING THAT THEY DO.

    Amendment XXVI protects men and women from losing their right to vote on the basis of their age, so long as they are at least 18: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.”

    So if by your INCORRECT logic that the prior amendments enshrined rights for black men and white women that white men cannot enjoy, then XXVI clearly enshrines that right for all people 18+.

    THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER is that the Constitution gives no preference to blacks over whites, nor to women over men. It does not say “black men have the right to vote” and “women have the right to vote.” It says that states cannot deny those rights on the basis of race or gender. This includes making a law saying “white men cannot vote” - that would be unconstitutional just as assuredly as law saying “black women cannot vote.”

    So, you’re way off base.

    How am I wrong?

  37. Chris Fluharty Says:

    I do not think you understaood me. I think we are trying to same the same thing. But by your logic we do not need the 19th and I think that was the whole point to begin with.

  38. globalist_elitist Says:

    We do need a 19th amendment to prohibit states from barring women from voting. I mean, no, NOW we don’t need it. If it were repealed, I highly doubt any state would take away the right for women to vote. Just as if we repealed the 13th amendment, I highly doubt slavery would return. But why should we repeal it unless we expect the repeal to be acted upon?

  39. Trent Hill Says:


    Chris’ point is that in the original wording of the constitution, Women had the right to vote. So did blacks. As did all people above the age of 18. The 19th Amendment isn’t needed because it is redundant. Even if the 19th Amendment were repealed, you Constitution could (and would and should) be read to designate women/blacks with voting rights.

  40. Joe Says:

    I realize that repealing the 19th amendment is not a plank of the Constitution Party’s platform. It is not part of my state party’s platform either. But it is silly to claim that it is only Howard’s personal, private opinion. He stated it in a speech given publicly at a law school, recorded it, and then sent a copy to the delegates to the 2004 Constitution Party convention. I received it as part of my welcome package: “Thanks for registering, as thanks please accept this gift (etc. etc.). Now one can certainly construe that as a personal act of Howard’s. I did not save the letter and do not remember if it was on Constitution Party letterhead or Conservative Caucus letterhead. My point is that the view the nineteenth amendment should be repealed is not some “kook, fringe” opinion, unless you consider Howard a kook. I know plenty of liberals do.

    I liked the speech so much and listened to it so often that the tape deck in my card ate it, so you will have to take my word for it that it existed or not as you prefer. If you talk to enough people who were at that convention surely someone else will remember receiving a casette tape. Folks can ask Howard if he was engaging in hyperbole, but it certainly did not sound like it. He was adament that the 19th was the worst amendment ever, yes worse than the 16th or the 17th. Now, if someone wants to claim that either of those amendments are worse than the 19th, I wouldn’t bother to argue with them, but Howard had me convinced.

    Gary, if the only candidate on the ballot were Obama, Giuliani, or Starrett I would not vote for any of them. I would write-in a vote for someone else because I do not believe any of those three are qualified. I doubt my choices will be limited to those three, especially since Mary has stated that she will not run for president.

  41. globalist_elitist Says:

    “Chris’ point is that in the original wording of the constitution, Women had the right to vote.”


    No one has the right to vote spelled out anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments.

  42. Chris Fluharty Says:

    globalist- go back and read the statement you just wrote think for a minute and maybe a light bulb might come on. You answered your own question. I think semantics are tripping you up, either that you just like to argue and look superior, but no one is impressed, they understand the discussion just fine.

  43. Cody Quirk Says:

    But it is silly to claim that it is only Howard’s personal, private opinion.

    =Of course! Many ex-CP’ers share that opinion too.

  44. Cody Quirk Says:

    However, Howard obviously doesn’t put such a opinion into practice, especially in the CP.

  45. globalist_elitist Says:

    This is not about semantics.

    There is no right to vote spelled out anywhere.

    There are only amendments prohibiting restricting the right to vote on the basis of race, gender, and age.

    Take away these amendments, and it would be perfectly legal for a state to say that black women aged 25-35 could not vote.

  46. SovereignMN Says:

    This is an easy debate to settle:

    1776: Nobody has a right to vote. Voting qualifications were left to the States to decide.

    1870: Nobody has a right to vote. Voting qualifications were left to the States to decide…except they can’t decide who votes on the condition of race or whether they were once slaves.

    1920: Nobody has a right to vote. Voting qualifications were left to the States to decide…except they can’t decide who votes on the condition of race, whether they were once slaves or sex.

    1971: Nobody has a right to vote. Voting qualifications were left to the States to decide…except they can’t decide who votes on the condition of race, whether they were once slaves, sex or age (unless they are younger than 18)

    As I read it, States could still qualify voters on the basis of land ownership, religion, citizenship, age (for those under 18), wealth, etc.

    Of course this assumes that State constitutions don’t forbide such actions. I’m also sure that any such action by a State (for land ownership, religion or wealth in particular) would result in a court challenge based on the 1st clause of the 14th amendment “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

  47. globalist_elitist Says:

    So where is the disagreement?

    I’m saying that the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments were needed, and are just as needed as the 13th. I don’t assume that states would begin taking away the vote from women if the 19th were repealed, but they wouldn’t reinstitute slavery if the 13th were repealed either. Should we therefore repeal the 13th? I don’t think so. There’s no point to repealing an uncessary amendment unless it is a BAD amendment.

    Interesting thing about the 26th: If you notice, this does not preclude states from lowering their voting ages to say, 15. I would be in support of that. The law allows people age 15-17 to work, and unless they are exempt from taxation (which would be another alternative), then they are victims of taxation without representation.

  48. SovereignMN Says:

    GE…I don’t have a disagreement with you here. I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. I also don’t favor the repeal of the amendments you listed.

    The amendments that I would like to see repealed is the 14th, 16th and 17th (I favor popular election to Senate but believe it should be up to each State to decide for themselves) but that’s a separate discussion.

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    GE, we aren;t suggesting they shoul be repealed. just that they are, in point of fact, redundant.

  50. SovereignMN Says:

    Trent…I gotta side with GE on this one. gasp shock horror If there was no 19th amendment a State could, in theory, deny the right to vote based on gender. I don’t see how it’s redundant.

  51. Timm Knibbs Says:

    Sovereign is right those amendments are not redundant. The Constitution did not prohibit those groups from voting but did not protect their right to vote. Law were in place to deprive those groups the right to vote and therefore they could not vote and those laws were Constitutional. I would not support the repeal of any of them. As for what it is claimed that Howard Phillips said, I would like to hear it for myself before commenting further on that.
    The 17th amendment however is a big reason the federal government has unConstitutionally usurped much of the states power.

  52. Timm Knibbs Says:

    By the way when did Bill write this piece and why is it posted now.

  53. SovereignMN Says:

    Not sure when it was written but it was posted in response to a huge discussion a couple articles down about whether a woman is qualified to be President. This then led into the discussion about whether women’s suffrage was a good thing.

  54. Chris Fluharty Says:

    If you have the 10th you do not need the 19th. It really is that simple. If a state wants to remain in the dark ages that is their right to do so. Move to another state if you do not like it. We are a collection of states. A constitutional Republic. The 19th as do the others mentioned rob states of their rights to self govern. So I would repeal the all of them, and some of them were never legally ratified in the first place. But again this is my opinion and not that of the party.

  55. Trent Hill Says:

    Oops. I thought me and Chris were on the same page.
    I heavily disagree with his stated opinion above.

    And actually, im going to agree with GE too. Having reviewed the Constitution, I find no place where voting rights are specifically stated. So there is a need for the 19th, as well as the rest of them.

  56. Cody Quirk Says:

    “By the way when did Bill write this piece and why is it posted now.”

    May 2005

  57. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Trent- We are on the same page as is GE. We just see it differently. There is no specific phrase that gives the right to vote. GE is right it is a state issue and should be. Thus the reason we do not need the 19th. That is making a state ignore its sovereignty. If oyu do not believe in states rights Trent you are in the wrong party. You are no better then a Republocrat who thinks we are a centralized democracy and not a representative constitutional republic. You may want to refresh yourself on the National Platform. I think however we all desre the same results in the end.

  58. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Here is a refresher for you. No I hope you see why I say what I say. The 19th as do those others violates the 10th Amendment. I hope we are on the same page again. CF

    State Sovereignty

    Our federal republic was created by joint action of the several states. It has been gradually perverted into a socialist machine for federal control in the domestic affairs of the states.

    The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, health care, ad infinitum.

    The Constitution Party calls for the federal government to divest itself of operations not authorized by the Constitution. We call upon Congress to extract the federal government from such enterprises, whether or not they compete with private enterprise.

  59. globalist_elitist Says:

    We’re not on the same page.

    I do not believe in government’s rights. I believe in human rights. I believe in the inherent social equality of all people, regardless of gender, race, etc. I think that the U.S. as a nation should stand for those things. Therefore, the 10th amendment is not sufficient. “Move to another state” is not good enough.

  60. John Robillard Says:

    With all due respect Chris, being a Constitutional Republic means little more than having to obtain a supermajority of state ligislatures and federal representatives to agree to force something down the throats of the minoirty states by amending the Constitution … just like they have in the case being discussed. People are free to have differing opinions as to whether it was a good idea or not (having passed the 19th), without someone on either side of the issue violating what most would agree would be the principle of “state’s rights” - which is that the feds ought to legislate only within their proper sphere. In this case, the 19th makes it their proper sphere regarding womens’ suffrage.

    When we talk about states’ rights, we are typically refering to area of fed intervention that is NOT enumerated in the original compact or in one of the supermajority-approved amendments somewhere … such as when they mandate that our state Senate has to be apportioned by population density rather than geographical area; or that our cars must have such and such minimum fuel efficiencies; or our toilets must have X gallons maximum amount of water per flush.

  61. Chris Fluharty Says:

    GE- if you want human rights move to Canada. Real human rights is protection from big government. I bet you want the Feds to tell you when to use the bathroom too. if you want big fed gov then we are not on the same page and nor do I want to be. Who’d thought a Hillary clone would be on TPW

    John- If the whole idea of no specific right to vote is not in the original compact then why do we need the 19th at all? The super majority is shoving its will on the minority. A constitutional republic is a nation of laws not of majorities. That is democracy and in some cases socialism. No wonder the big box parties enjoy such success. You are not anti women just because you feel they should not get special amendments just for them. It took federal threat of no tax money to force many states to ratify the 19th. How is that the will of the people. The state assemblies who were elected by the people did not want this amendment, and I am happy to say Missouri was one of them. They were afraid of the precedence. Why not illegal immigrant suffrage? Where would it stop? So the feds played hardball to get it to pass. Not a constitutional republic at all.

  62. globalist_elitist Says:

    You’re an idiot.

    Protection from “big government” is what the 19th amendment is all about. It is protecting women from GOVERNMENT restricting their rights to be active participants therein.

    I don’t want a big federal government, you moron. Nor do I want a tyranical state government restricting my human rights in the name of “state’s rights.”

    STATES DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. Only individuals do.

    States rights = big government.

  63. John Robillard Says:

    Honestly Chris, by your rationale there should never have been a constitutional provision to amend the Constitution.

  64. Trent Hill Says:


    We disagree heavily. “Move to another state” isn’t good enough. While I never thought i’d be on the same side as GE on an issue (across from a CPer), it is happening.
    Voting rights is an equality issue. The Constitution doesn’t gaurantee anyone the right to vote—I think we all agree on that. What it does say is that ALL men are created equal. The Constitution is based on the idea of popular soveriegnity, which means the people rule. Not SOME of the people. ALL of the people,and they each get a vote. If a state ever denied blacks, jews, women, or gays to vote—I’d be pissed, and i’d get involved. That would be like if your home state all of a sudden decided to heavily survey every home, and when you objected,the government’s response was “Don’t like it? Go live in Iowa.”
    I disagree with GE on the States’ Rights issues, there are certain powers which are delegated to the federal government, and the others belong to the states.

  65. globalist_elitist Says:

    “Powers delegated” /= “rights.”

    A group, organization, club, collective, government, or corporation cannot have “rights.” It can have powers based on the individuals who compose the group.

    States do not have rights. The federal government does not have rights.

    The job of government is to protect the inherent rights of individuals. This is the state governments’ jobs, and this is the federal government’s job. If the state government attempts to abridge those rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then it is the federal government’s job to step in. This is a legitimate power.

    The Constitution’s purpose is to put restraints on government. Originally, it was written to restrict only the federal government. Later, with amendments, it became applicable to all of the state governments.

    People like Chris think this is bad. They think that we should be 50 little tyrannies, and if we don’t like our resident tyranny, we should be “free” to move to another one. But hell, if state governments have no restraints, what is to stop them from murdering people who try to leave?

  66. Chris Fluharty Says:

    GE- Resulting in name calling good liberal tactic. Are you sure you are not a socialist democrat you sure do talk like one. I still say you have no clue what I am talking about. Maybe a Civics class might help. Good luck with that.

    John- That is not what I am saying at all. It seems that way but I happen to think the VP amendment was a good one. but outside that I do not think there has been a needed amendment. most of them have promoted big gov. Especially direct election of senators. Many of the other early amendments were not legally ratified. Some of the late ones were ratified in rather shady ways. Such as the 19th being dangled with tax dollars. If white men do not have a direct right to vote why should whites or blacks. It is a state issue and should be decided there. This is the true rationale behind a Constitutional republic.

    Trent-Then we are not in disagreement. I would fight any state government that tried to deny voting rights also. But you do not need that specified in the Constitution. All people should stand up to tyranny and not sit back and wait for the gov to give them special rights. All people deserve to vote and we should stand up to it if thta is taken away. Leave the state was sarcasm.

  67. infojunkie Says:

    “My point is that the view the nineteenth amendment should be repealed is not some “kook, fringe” opinion, unless you consider Howard a kook. I know plenty of liberals do.”

    By that logic: since I think that repealing the 19th is a kook, fringe opinion, I must consider Howard one.

    > You are wrong when you said women did not vote for 300 hundred years.
    > Women voted in the Early Republic.

    Women in New Jersey had the right to vote from 1776-1807, for example. A 1807 NJ bill also rescinded the right of black men to vote.

    November 5, 1872: Susan B. Anthony and 14 or 15 other women voted in a Presidential election, having registered to vote in order to test the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Anthony was tried in 1873 for illegally voting. ( more: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/laws/p/us_v_sba.htm )

  68. globalist_elitist Says:

    Chris - I am easily the most pro-capitalist person on TPW. I resorted to name-calling after you accused me of loving Big Brother.

  69. Chris Fluharty Says:

    I am sorry if I am reading you wrong but a love for the 19th is a love for big brother because it takes away a states right. Which was your original argument to start. There is no logical reason to have it if people just acted like civil human beings instead of pigs and alley cats. That is my point. And as info junkie has shown my early comments to be true, women had and should have never lost it.

  70. globalist_elitist Says:

    States do not have rights! If you think that states, which are governments, have rights, then you are a statist.

    The Constitution exists to reign in government. It delegates few powers to the central government and reserves others to the states. Powers, not rights!

    Rights exist within individuals - not collectives. The Constitution should protect the rights of individuals against their infringement by collectives, i.e. the state governments.

    Should state governments be able to restrict speech? To confiscate firearms?

    Originally, they could. Was this a good thing? Only if you are a government supremacist who thinks the Constitution exists to prevent the central government from infringing on “state’s rights” to oppress.

    Governments exist to protect and defend rights. Any government that infringes upon rights is illegitimate to that extent. There is no reason that a state should have the “right” (delegated power) to restrict people from voting based on their gender or race.

    You are totally twisting the argument. YOU are the one who is for big government, at the state level, infringing on rights and the spirit of the Declaration. And then you twist and call me a “social democrat.” Your argument is big-government authoritarianism.

  71. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Somebody needs a hug. Call me what you will but the 19th is uneeded. Powers, rights that is semantics again. The people control the local gov. The further the gov gets from the people the less rights we as people have. The Civil War was fought because of it. I suggest we should agree to disagree. I would not want to live in your America anymore then i want to live here now.

  72. Trent Hill Says:


    While I agree with you in principle—“States do not have rights! If you think that states, which are governments, have rights, then you are a statist.”
    That is stupid. States may not have rights, but you know what Chris is saying—in fact you have said it yourself.
    States may not have rights in your eyes, but they have powers which are ignored by the Constitution delegated to them.
    Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you here. The Constitution garantees fair treatment to all individuals. Meaning that if a state lets ANYONE vote, it must let all citizens (of age) vote.

  73. globalist_elitist Says:

    Chris - Then move. You are an admitted anti-American.

    Trent - It’s not semantics. It’s about statism vs. individual freedom. States may design their own laws for determining who may vote, but those laws should not infringe upon the basic social equality outlined in the Declaration of Indpenedence. Discriminating on the basis of race or gender is unacceptable to freedom loving people, whether by the state or federal government. State governments practiced this “legally” prior to the passage of the 14th and 19th amendments. So now Chris doesn’t want to live in America. What a fucking fascist.

  74. Trent Hill Says:

    “Chris - Then move. You are an admitted anti-American.”
    So what GE? I thought calling yourself an “american” was just collectivist rhetoric?
    Besides, I don’t know why you’re laying into me, I agree with you. Already said that. I think the Federal government has a responsibility to preserve everyone’s right to vote (as well as several other things).

    However, the fact that in one paragraph you denounce Nationalism and in the next article spout “collectivist” rhetoric like saying Chris is “an anti-american” says a lot about your views. That is to say, they are either not fully formed yet (which I woud believe, considering your conversion from Green to quasi-libertarian) or you just like to argue too much.

  75. Chris Campbell Says:

    If the men will not stand up, then the women often have. Don’t like it? Then run yourself. Otherwise, the women-folk will rise up to take charge for their families and well being.

  76. Chris Campbell Says:

    Joe Says:

    April 10th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Yes, I am saying that if your mother works outside of the home and votes she is a feministJoe, anytime you can snap for fingers and overnight, change our monetary system, taxing system, etc to allow famileis to have mom stay home, then please do so. Most families, increasingly, have not choice-it is mom work or no food, no house ,etc.

    Not all of us are as fortunate as some to have the broad financial options available as a Peroutka, etc. The Fed reserve, tax system, etc is set up to force us into this.

  77. John Chance Says:

    Joe has long ago left the CP

    globalist_elitist Says:

    April 10th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
    The father does not “represent” the family, you collectivist asshole. Each invidual represents himself or herself.

    Constitution Party = Fascist collectivists.

    These neanderthalic morons are actually having a serious debate over whether or not women should be allowed to vote.


    Sir, I am neither a collectavist nor a fascist. Please actually look up the meaing of words before you throw them around. The radical individualism that America was founded on is crumbling itno “me, ME’ hence the pornographer demanding his rights, the pedophile his, etc, etc.

    GE, try reading the Bible once in awhile-the Foudners did you know. The man is most certainly the head of the household. I guess that means the Bible writers and the Founders were “assholes” too??!!

  78. Trent Hill Says:

    John Chance,

    Dont bother. That IS actually what GE believes.
    As for the man being the head of household, I agree with you. However, in politics this has no place (or in civil government), unless the country is theocratic.And if it were theocratic, i’d leave or overthrow it. While I agree that the spiritual head of household is the male, we musn’t confuse that with Women having equal representation in governance.

  79. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - I do like to argue; perhaps my views are not fully formed (I think they are… but they weren’t when I first started posting here). “America,” to me, is an idea. If you really hate the idea that much, then you’re free to live. He says “I wouldn’t want to live in your America (i.e. an anti-racist pro-capitalist one) anymore then I would want to live here now (i.e. a slightly less anti-racist and slightly lest pro-capitalist then I would want).” My solution to anyone who feels this way; if they feel “America’ the idea is inherently bad or irredeemable, is to take advantage of the freedoms this country offers and leave. Why wouldn’t you want to?

    I’ve read the Bible enough. It is a fraud. It is a collectivist hate text. You are free to live by whatever cod you chose to, but you are not free to force it onto me. Some of the Founders were “assholes.” Other of them were great men with one or two hangups that were typical of their day. Most of my favorite founders were not Christians and/or were public secularists. Paine (atheist), Jefferson (Deist), and Madison (Christian secularist) come to mind.

    You admit that America was founded on radical individualism and yet you now bemoan that. You too are anti-American.

  80. Cody Quirk Says:

    John, did you check out Angela’s and James Niemela’s posts here?


  81. Chris Fluharty Says:

    If you mean your America yes I hate it. I favor an America that follows the constitution which protects rights for all, not just for certain groups. I really think you need a basic High School civics class before you continue. I too believe ALL people of age should vote with in the LAW that is what a republic is. If the law says property ownership required for voting; then either change the law, follow it or move. It really is that simple. We are a republic! I would never vote for any idiot dumb enough to withhold voting rights to someone. Neither would the majority of America. GE you are no better then the socialist democrats who give trees in a forest rights. Yes I am un America if it means accepting democracy rather than a Republic. The South had it right and it seems nothing has changed in the last 140+ years. Good luck finding out what you believe. But any person dumb enough to call the Bible a fraud is not smart enough to grasp government.

  82. globalist_elitist Says:

    States do have the power to make electoral requirements. The people are free to “change the law or move,” as you say. One way to change the law is to pass a constitutional amendment. The framers created a process by which this could take place - but when it does and you don’t like it, you whine like a typical liberal. Boo-fucking-hoo.

    “The South had it right.”

    Classic. Racist. Please kill yourself.

  83. Trent Hill Says:


    While i’m not agreeing 100% with Chris Fluharty here…the statement “The South had it right.” is not racist. If you could keep from making over-arching statements like these, more people would be willing to listen to hwat you have to say.

  84. Chris Fluharty Says:

    GE- I am not even fully white. Don’t let the last name full you I was adopted, so how dare you accuse me of racism please get a brain! Also my family fought for the Union and they fought to preserve the union not to protect slaves. Your “classic comments” prove your historical ignorance. While you take civics pick up a history class as well.

    the constitutional amendment process should not usurp powers given to the states. If the power is not delegated then it stays in the states. The 10th amendment was never repealed. like I said please go take a high school civics course you are embarrassing yourself.

  85. globalist_elitist Says:

    You are a moron. There is no such thing as “repealing” an amendment. New amendments are passed to supercede old ones. When was prohibition repealed? By ANOTHER amendment. So if an amendment “infringes” on “state’s rights” to oppress, then that “power” is no longer “reserved” under the 9th amendment. You are the one who needs to take a civics lesson, idiot.

  86. Chris Fluharty Says:

    GE- Your grade school vocabulary shows your grade school mentality. Good luck living such a sad existence. Try the book you call a fraud. It might cure your sorry attitude. You like semantics way to much.

  87. globalist_elitist Says:

    “way to much”?

    This is not about semantics. You say that the Constitution cannot supercede the 10th amendment without “repealing it,” and I’m pointing out that no amendment has ever been “repealed.” They are “repealed” by passing new amendments that supercede them. The 14th, the 16th, the 19th, the 26th, etc.

    The Bible is trash to me and I’m free not to read it. I know that makes you very angry, being that you are a Nazi theocrat. But what you’re not free to do is tell lies about the Constittuion to justify your arguments. We all live under the Constitution. Only degenerates live under your worthless hate text called the Bible.

  88. Trent Hill Says:

    Ya. We are all degenerates.

    Charles P. Henderson
    Thomas Aquinas
    Sir Isaac Newton
    Michael Guillen
    Robert Boyle
    Michael Faraday
    Gregor Mendel
    Max Planck
    Dr. Martin Luther King

    Heck, even Albert Einstein believed in God, albiet he never ascribed to a “personal God” which means he was not Christian.

    Charles Darwin thought that evolution proved God.

    Lastly, we come to Georges Lamaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest—and the first person to suggest the Big Bang Theory.

  89. Trent Hill Says:

    Come on GE. How are these people degenerates? I could add more to the list if you like.

  90. globalist_elitist Says:

    Listing names from the 1700s and saying that they “lived under the Bible” is like saying that Aristotle is to be demeaned because he didn’t acknowledge that the world was round. Point me to a Christian living today that I wouldn’t consider a “degenerate” and then you may have your point. And besides - how many of the greats you listed truly “lived UNDER the Bible” - i.e. believed that the world was 6,000 years old in the face of irrefutable evidence that it was much older, etc.?

  91. Chris Fluharty Says:

    GE- More name calling. Are you sure you are not a misguided liberal?

    also you call me a theocrat. Show me one thing I have said that would suggest that? Back your slander up. in fact I am one of the leading thorns of the side to the theocratic fringe on this site. I believe we must keep Cesar’s what is Cesar’s and God what is God’s. There is no way we can have a republic and a theoarcy. That is a contradiction and if you actually took a class you would know that. So stop pouting and grow up already. If all you can do is name call go do it somewhere else. If you’d like to discuss civilly lets us do that.

    Are you saying the 19th made the 10 null and void? If so what in the Constitution gave the federal government the right to do so. Please cite article and section. I am not sure where you are getting your information from.

    BTW i am not angry you won’t accept the bible. God is not a puppet master and you are free to choose Hell if you like. I know it is hard for a liberal to grasp such complex ideas. Maybe when you stop being so bigoted you might find a peace in your life. Good Day GE

    PS please post this so called irrefutable evidence. Because I will be happy to squash it. However I doubt you’ll accept it because the Bible is to hard for you to understand.

  92. globalist_elitist Says:

    The 19th doesn’t make the 10th null and void. I never said that. I’m saying that the 19th restricted the power of the state to deny women the vote on the basis of their gender - a power that was previously reserved to the states. I’m saying that the 10th does not have to be “repealed” in order to be superceded in explicit cases. What gives the Constitution the “right” to do so? Documents don’t have rights. But what gives the Constitution the power is the article that outlines an amendment process. NEWSFLASH: The Constitution can be amended.

    If you want to argue that the world is only 6,000 years old… Move to Iran. They are with you.

  93. Trent Hill Says:

    Charles P. Henderson
    Thomas Aquinas
    Sir Isaac Newton
    Michael Guillen
    Robert Boyle
    Michael Faraday
    Gregor Mendel
    Max Planck
    Dr. Martin Luther King

    You say all these people lived in the 1700’s.
    Wrong. Over half of them did not.

    You say point to one Christian living TODAY who you would consider smart. Charles P. Henderson and Michael Guillen, two of the first names on my list are alive today. And although you may not agree with their theological views…they’re intelligent.
    I could also point to the JUST recently deceased John Paul II. (BUT HE WAS CATHOLIC,you say?) He knew 24 languages. If you don’t think he is intelligent, you are a crock.

    Ohk. How about:
    Stansfield Turner - Former CIA Director
    Alan Shephard (died in 1998) - First American in Space
    Hugh Ross - Astrophysicist
    William Stoeger- Another Astrophysicist
    Lee Strobel
    Ravi Zacharias
    Jimmy Akin
    Gleason Archer
    Francis J. Beckwith
    Craig L. Blomberg
    Edward John Carnell
    Gordon Clark
    J.P. Moreland
    Duane Gish - Scientist/Archaeologist
    R.C. Sproul - Cosmologist/Ecologist
    R.L. Wysong - Scientist/Cosmologist
    Dr. William E. Dembski - Mathematician
    Dr. Phillip E. Johnson - Former UC Berkeley Law Professor
    Michael Novak

    Those people are all alive, or deceased in the last few years.
    Oh, and have you ever read C.S. Lewis? If you think you’re smarter than C.S. Lewis…you’re just blowing your own skirt up.

    And that is just names from some of the books in my room. I could look on the other bookshelf if you want.

  94. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh,and according to your strict limitations—Im not a christian.
    I dont believe the world is 6,000 years old.

  95. Chris Fluharty Says:

    GE, I finally see what you are trying to say. And for the most part I agree with you. However as a republic we are still a nation of laws and that should have been the foundation of law not a mob rule which was that thew 19th has become. the Feds threatened the states to get it ratified. This is why I am opposed ti the 19th. The states should have done the right thing. But I agree no person of age should be denied the right to vote. So I still stand by the fact the 19th is redundant and not needed ( but only if the states refused to do what was right)

    I’m not the one who made the claim that it wasn’t as old as it is. The burden of proof is on you. But we really should just leyt it go since this is a political website.

  96. globalist_elitist Says:

    14th amendment: “... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    You know that part, right? You’re saying that the 14th amendment essentially makes it illegal for a state to deny suffrage to women, since it would giving them unequal protection before the law, right? Well, keep reading.

    Also from the 14th amendment: “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.”

    Clearly, the amendment does not preclude states from denying women the right to vote. It, to my surprise, doesn’t even prevent denying blacks (or whites) the right to vote, especially in state elections.

  97. globalist_elitist Says:

    I should have said the 14th amendment does not prevent denying the vote on the account of race. The 15th does.

    Regardless, my point is that “equal protection” is clearly not the magic bullet since the amendment that spells out equal protection also makes provisions for denying the vote on the basis of race, and specifically precludes women.

  98. Daniel Says:

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Let’s Get A Little Practical: A Woman’s Right To Politics, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

Leave a Reply