Voter activity in Missouri was down 10 percent since 2010. The inactivity of young voters will be seen as an opportunity. One of the possible repercussions will be the revocation of voter rights. And because few came to vote, the amendment will be slipped in the ballot and it will be passed. The level of protest that it will take to get our rights back will be unimaginable.
To take away voting rights from the American citizens would require replacing several amendments in the U.S. Constitution. A constitutional amendment is very hard to pas thus the reason there are only 27 Amendments to the Constitution. To remove several amendments without the knowledge of the American people would not be possible. The attempt to remove any one amendment would be all over the news and discussed by all elected officials.
In 2013 the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to strick down a portion of the Voters Rights Act of 1965 were the most blatantly racist state would be required to have Ferderal oversight in there polls. This portion was put in place to ensure that there were no tactics being exercised to keep a speific race or economic standing out of the polls. The Constitution of the United States states that only Congress can make such a move. Voter activity in Missouri was down 10 percent. There was a proposition on the ballot that allowed the state of Missouri to fire any techer that could not produce a certain testing score within one year. Only the people that voted had any idea about what happened. If the inactivity continues what will keep the government from slowly and patiently revoking the rights of a group of people that don't fit into their agenda?
The portion of the voting rights act of 1965 that was struck down was considered by the majority of the SCOTUS to be unconstitutional and also no longer necessary today. Much has changed since 1965 and race relations has come along way. The voting rights act was a law but not in the Constitution. The right to vote is constitutional and several amendments besides voting rights amendments refer to voting as the procedure to elect our representatives.
Any bill that would remove voting rights from the people would be unconstitutional and would be struck down by the SCOTUS. Nearly the entire Constitution would have to be replaced to change that.
" If the inactivity continues what will keep the government from slowly and patiently revoking the rights of a group of people that don't fit into their agenda?"
Checks and balances and the constitution. No single political party has complete control of our government so those who fit the agenda of one lawmaker does not fit the agenda of another one. So such cooperation to remove voting rights from specific people would not be possible even without constitutional protections.
Con has made a very bold claim, with two references to support the claim. Those (low voter turnout and voting rights act of 1965) references however did not support the claims made and easily refuted.His argument was weak and he
never addressed either of my rebuttals.