Implicit allows for interpretative inferences, explicit does not.
Clearly that's not true - since the example you reference below (the right to free speech) as being explicit, is not absolute and has been open to interpretation.
You're not reading what I'm stating. I never said "absolute", and I never said not open to interpretation (with "interpretation" being a subject noun), I said "interpretative inferences" (with inferences being the subject noun, and "interpretative" being an adjective describing the inferences). Allow me to explain.
Implicit means something is not stated outright, and is instead implied, hinted, suggested. The very nature of an implication (how something is stated) means it must be inferred (how it is taken to be meant) in order to even be understood. When something is implied, or implicit, it can be inferred to mean many different things, some may even be incorrect. This is not true for an explicit statement, as an explicit statement can only be inferred exactly as stated.
The right to free speech is explicitly stated in the Constitution and is not open to interpretation. There is no "implied" anything. You cannot infer something different than what it states. It states quite plainly that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That means, quite explicitly, that you have freedom of speech, to say whatever you want, and that Congress cannot pass any laws abridging it in any way. You cannot infer from that to mean something other than what is stated.
In several cases over the years the Supreme Court and others have ruled that certain permissible limitations on free speech is consistent with the terms of the Constitution, but they have in no way interpreted the free speech clause to mean anything other than what it explicitly states. Their rulings never said, in effect, "Well, the free speech clause
actually means [this or that]", they have all said, in effect, "[This law or that law] does not conflict with the explicit statement of the Constitution regarding freedom of speech."
The link you supplied doesn't show a Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote,
Actually, it does .... just not an explicit one.
Everything I've stated with respect to the Constitution and the right to vote has been in the context of what I stated in Post #24, which is in the context of an explicit one. You've introduced "implicit" as a straw man to change the premise and the context of my statements. In order to find a Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote within the link you supplied, one
must infer certain things that are not stated outright, they must read between the lines, so to speak, and see things that are not there. It's no different than stating the Constitution provides no explicit guaranteed right to privacy. It doesn't. It's not in there anywhere. One can certainly infer that it's in there, especially since the entire document implicitly screams the right to privacy, but it's not in there just the same.
Like I said: it is not an absolute (or unqualified and unconditional) right ... nevertheless, it is still a right of citizenship.
I never said it wasn't a right of citizenship. I simply said the Constitution never explicitly states that it's a right.
And the Constitution guarantees it to the extent that the Constitution defines those things by reason of which the right may not be denied.
That's certainly one way to look at it, but you're inferring what the Constitution probably says, rather than what it actually says. Guaranteeing the right to vote itself is not the same as guaranteeing under which conditions you cannot be denied the right to vote, even though they may seem to be de facto one in the same. There's a reason the Constitution leaves the questions of the right to vote up to the States.
it [your link] merely restates precisely what I've been saying, that the right to vote is determined by the states,
No ..... it shows the restrictions or qualifications on the right to vote are determined by the states ....
Which is precisely what I said in Post #24.
not the federal government or the Constitution,
If the above were actually true, then the following would not be [mutually exclusive]:
".... and the Constitution only lists ways in which people cannot be denied the right to vote."
Well, when you take the statement as a whole and split it into different quotes and have it all out of the context of my statement of explicit and put it into the context of implicit, yeah, sure it wouldn't be true. I'll give ya that.
I'm not confused by it, nor do I disagree - it's just that it's irrelevant to what I said.
I know it it's irrelevant to what you said. That's because you changed the context of the discussion by changing my premise to one you preferred (or possibly one you misunderstood it to be) and then used that to refute what I said. I think they call that a straw man argument.
Additionally, the above introduces an inapplicable (ie explicitness) into our discussion.
Excuse me?
Who introduced
what into this thread? I introduced explicit, and then you morphed that into implicit and then ran with it.
Our difference is one of view, or perhaps understanding.
I believe I understand what you are saying - and generally I have no issue with any of it, save for the one specific assertion I referenced in my initial post for the reasons stated.
I'm gonna go with a difference of understanding, and assume you did not read Post #24 and instead took the quote from Post #135 (where I restated in paraphrase what I had earlier stated in Post #24) out of context.
But just for giggles and to remove any misunderstanding, I'll state it again, slowly this time...
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people
cannot be denied the right to vote, but it never explicitly states the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of
race or
gender. Citizens of
Washington DC can vote for President;
18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you
fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can
vote for House members and
Senate members. The Constitution does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by Constitutional Amendments several times. Aside from the aforementioned many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people
cannot be denied the right to vote, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution,
that right can be withheld.
A Wiki page on Suffrage containing the same information that is found at the hypertext links in the paragraph above doesn't really refute the paragraph above, nor the statements within it.
So, in conclusion, I assert with great zealotry and unflappable confidence that the Constitution of these United States never once explicitly states the right to vote, and that other than the few restrictions and conditions explicitly expressed in the Constitution under which someone cannot be denied to vote, the qualifications for voters are left solely to the States.
