you may disagree but it is true in a presidential race, and the supreme court has ruled on it.
Well, yes and no. There have certainly been decisions on both sides of that issue, but the U.S. Constitution certainly does explicitly say that U.S. citizens are afforded the
right to vote (over and over again actually)...
US Constitution: 15th Amendment:Section. 1. 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.
US Constitution: 19th Amendment:Section 1. The right of the 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.
US Constitution: 24th Amendment:Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
There is also the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. §§ 1973-
1973aa-6)
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
Now, as with anything in the US Constitution, anything that is not specified explicitly is left for interpretation by the States and Congress (in a vacuum states rights win). Many states have explicitly
denied the right to vote to certain segments of their population (felons mostly). But because it can be denied to some people, for certain reasons, doesn't make it not a right! We also have a "Right to Liberty" layed out in the Declaration of Independence (and under Habeas Corpus). That doesn't mean we can't put people in jail if they are convicted of a crime! The Supreme Court has repeatedly (even recently) recognized that we have a right to privacy, but this doesn't mean that you can't be compelled to turn over DNA samples (or that they can't search your house and read your diary) if the government has probable cause that you committed a crime (except that the PATRIOT act says they can search your house without a warrant or probable cause, so they don't really even need that)! The Supreme Court has found that, barring a specific Amendment to the contrary, States are permitted to restrict the right to vote where not explicitly barred from doing so by the Constitution. (BTW: I believe this decision was a good one. The Court only interprets the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to change it if it isn't "right".)
However, just because it is so, doesn't mean it's right (or not a right).
My problem with those laws (not affording the retarded, insane, or felons the right to vote) isn't because I believe that severely retarded people (or paranoid delusional schizophrenics or whatever) are all capable of making informed choices, it is because the fringes are too blurry for that power to be afforded to the power structure. In other words, who decides who is insane or retarded? I've taken IQ tests myself with wildly varying results. I, myself, was also once diagnosed bi-polar many years ago (that diagnosis was incorrect -- I was just a kid). Should I not be allowed to vote? Do I think it's wise to let murderers, rapists, and sexual predators to vote? Of course not, but felons can become felons for many things. If you provide the political machine in power with a way to disenfranchise the portion of the population that doesn't agree with them, it provides a method for them to retain power even when true "public opinion" is against them. Don't like a segment of the population's politics? Criminalize them! (Drug war anyone?)
The slope is too slippery. Why not let them have a voice? Let's be realistic, it's not like were going to have a huge bloc of insane murderers who elect Charles Manson as the President! We do have about 1 in 136 US residents in prison currently though. The US incarcerates by far the largest proportion of its population of any country
in history, accounting for a quarter of the world’s prisoners in its corrections system (a large percentage of which are non-violent drug offenders who are suffering from an addiction and so we put them in a drug-rich environment in prison). We aren't really the land of the free here, we're the land of the prisoners.
The devil never comes proclaiming that he is the devil. I don't trust the government at all to "do what's right" (not now, and certainly not 50 or 100 years from now). We must defend ourselves against those who would remain in power at all costs.