Here is the current version, just to make sure we are discussing the correct language.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. Section 2. 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. On Jun 28, 8:00 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > So then Richard, you think women should not vote, Indians who have not > been taxed and 3/5 of black male votes should be the law? The > Constitution is very clear in Article 1 Section 2 on this matter. > > On Jun 28, 6:51 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > The constitution is what it is. The words are clear and the intent is > > well documented. The problem is not the constitution, but rather the > > politicians who attempt to exceed the powers they were granted. > > > On Jun 28, 7:45 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Obviously, much has changed over a couple hundred years. I see people > > > on both sides of the aisle argue about this. > > > We need gun control. Wire-tapping Americans without a warrant is fine > > > because it protects us. Gays should be able to marry. Due process and > > > cruel & unusual punishment doesn't apply to everyone. Poor Liberals > > > are denied their freedom of speech. Poor Conservatives are denied > > > their freedom of speech. And on it goes. > > > > The first thing I would change is the right to burn the American Flag > > > in public. I just don't see it as a freedom of speech / expression or > > > anything else. I don't see a need to protect this particular right. > > > > What would you change?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
