Yes, but discrimination of this sort is possible if it can pass the appropriate scrutiny test. It's just like how constitution says "the right to bear arms shal

Yes, but discrimination of this sort is possible if it can pass the appropriate scrutiny test. It's just like how constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", yet it's clear that certain firearms can be banned and certain people may be prohibited from owning firearms: theoretically speaking no right or protection is absolute, but we have to be very cautious in the way we restrict these rights. Government needs to show that there's a compelling interest in denying someone the right to bear arms while permitting them the right to vote, that doing so furthers that compelling interest, and (if strict scrutiny is used) that it's the most narrow (tailored toward that interest only) and smallest restriction possible. E.g., it could be argued that a first time non-violent offender who has shown remorse, is successfully reintegrated back into society, etc... cannot be denied any of the rights after a certain amount of time -- but a violent offender may recoup other rights after say 10 years, but not lose the right to bear arms for a longer period. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny (strictest standard) vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny (more lax, the most lax standard that can be applied to enumerated fundamental rights) vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review (the least strict standard, typically used for unenumerated rights)