My point in suggesting the reading in totality instead of just some..All examples of the SCOTUS to uphold our " right and priveldge of voting.."

We did not grant our forming Federalist the right to abrogate our vote and although not specifically granted in the Constitution it is not denied in it either.. Pain staking measures have always been to protect the right of vote, not deny it..

There is not a politician around that would move to strip that right unless they wanted immediate ousting...

Suffice it to say the Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth amendments gave representation to the District of Columbia, forbid poll taxes, and lowered the voting age to 18, respectively. The passage of each of these Amendments reflected a shift towards making voting a right of all citizens, and indeed a fundamental part of citizenship....

Four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude"..

Ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote—a right known as woman suffrage...

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "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 Etccc..

Let's not forget the Bil of Rights either..
Much has changed since the original writing.. Almost a third of the amendments added to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights was ratified concern the ability to vote...

You assume what I read and didn't read, I selected a piece I found interesting and pertinent. I read it all and your points address other issues on how we can vote, why we vote, what our vote means, how the government enables us to vote freely, but all these things still do not address my point, which is we as citizens get to choose who represents us in government and that in turn represents everything that a democracy aspires to be. Yet these ideals are NOT reflected in the Constitution by an absolute right to vote.

Instead, state governments can enact their own voting laws which can vary drastically, as they have in the past trying to prevent people from voting and the federal government had to step in and supersede them by creating new amendments.

The will of the people is not a mob rule it is the majority voice.

You assume what I read and didn't read, I selected a piece I found interesting and pertinent. I read it all and your points address other issues on how we can vote, why we vote, what our vote means, how the government enables us to vote freely, but all these things still do not address my point, which is we as citizens get to choose who represents us in government and that in turn represents everything that a democracy aspires to be. Yet these ideals are NOT reflected in the Constitution by an absolute right to vote.

Instead, state governments can enact their own voting laws which can vary drastically, as they have in the past trying to prevent people from voting and the federal government had to step in and supersede them by creating new amendments.

The will of the people is not a mob rule it is the majority voice.

You assume what I read and didn't read, I selected a piece I found interesting and pertinent. I read it all and your points address other issues on how we can vote, why we vote, what our vote means, how the government enables us to vote freely, but all these things still do not address my point, which is we as citizens get to choose who represents us in government and that in turn represents everything that a democracy aspires to be. Yet these ideals are NOT reflected in the Constitution by an absolute right to vote.

Instead, state governments can enact their own voting laws which can vary drastically, as they have in the past trying to prevent people from voting and the federal government had to step in and supersede them by creating new amendments.

The will of the people is not a mob rule it is the majority voice.

If the right to vote was in the Bill of Rights, what good would it do us if it was given the same lack of respect that Democrats and RINOs give the current Bill of Rights?

If the right to vote was equal to the right to the right to petition the government, the right to bear arms, the right to exercise one's religion, the right to due process, and the right of the states and the people to hold all power not specifically given to the feds, what freaking good would that do?

There is no documented rights that can overcome corrupt leaders.

The best way to make rights more available is to limit the power of the only force that can take them away. The government.

How about if we put the right to vote and the right to life both in the Constitution. Would you go along with that?

Looks like I'm more of constitutionist than you are Dave, as I still believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights and our governing process, which "is" our government. What I see as the problem is not enforcing some of our laws, especially in fraud. When did lying become so acceptable and allowable? If Journalist and representatives had a consequence to lying we wouldn't be in this muck we are in now, which has undermined all the trust of the people and in our own capability to make a good critical judgment/decision on issues and our representatives.