Stop, just admitted you are wrong. I know that is hard for you sometimes. Even I have been known to admit I'm wrong.
You basically regurgitated what I said, so I will repost and highlight the key points so you stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense:
You should know better than that. Voting isn't a
constitutional right, it is a gov't granted right. There are no mentions of the right
to vote in the constitution, only in various amendments are there protections against certain discrimination to vote.
You can't be banned from voting based on race or gender. But
you could be banned based on something like not paying taxes, not owning land, etc. At least that hasn't been challenged as nobody has been bold enough to push such a great idea. The only way I see that being invalidated is if they create new law (obamacare) or pretty much link it to discrimination like a pole tax. Meaning that land ownership or paying taxed disproportionately affects minorities or women.
I also provided a fact check from politifact with support from constitutional scholars that clearly state what I said here and highlighted those.
There is no affirmative right to vote, only gov't granted right that is constitutionally protected against certain provisions. The existence of subsequent amendments imply the right. But intending or implying aren’t quite the same as an explicit guarantee. And in Pocan's opinion, an explicit guarantee would make it more difficult to put restrictions on voting.
So you could and should be banned from voting for the reason I presented. But lets look at other reasons you could be banned. You can be banned for being a felon, so we could require a background check, which would require an ID. We can actually even ban you from voting for being on the terror watchlist, because this isn't a constitutional right subject to due process.
I also said that this is based solely on the lack of guarantee in the constitution and caselaw. If somebody were righteous and bold enough to ban voting from people who don't pay income tax or appear on the watchlist, it would certainly go to the supreme court. And it may well BECOME a constitutional right. But it doesn't exist now in its current form.
Hence why I posted an article with sufficient evidence that even you have to concede defeat through your thick skull:
1. the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution contains no right to vote for president.
2. Keyssar, author of
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, told us: "The basic fact is there is no affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. Never was."
3.
FairVote, which seeks to reform elections,
says that while constitutional amendments prohibit discrimination based on race, sex and age, "no affirmative right to vote exists."
4. In a 2012
piece for Salon.com, Yale law professor Heather Gerken wrote: "The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to vote. That always comes as a surprise to non-lawyers."
5. In 2006, University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps, critical of photo ID requirements, made almost the same statement Pocan did,
saying: "The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote."
"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden