Giving Rights to Felons

While taking them away from the rest of Citizens

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006382
from JoeUser Forums

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are trying to over turn the constitution, not by eht elegal means of amending it, but the way congress has been doing of late, by legislative fiat.

They want to restore the rights of all felons, regardless of their previous crimes, to be able to vote, even tho that is clearly a violation of the contstitutional clause that gives that right to the states ("the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," ).

Their arguements are lame, and indeed bordering on racist.  Their supporters claim that a majority of felons are black, when the actual fact is only about 1/3 are, still a high percentage.

But regardless of whether a minority or majority are one race or another, the US Constitution explicitly gave the right to the states to determine if convicted felons could vote. And before some liberals start yelling Jim Crow or racists, this was granted by the 14th amendments and most of the laws in the southern states were written by the Republican occupiers of the mid 19th century.  Long before Citizens were again allowed to govern themselves.

No, this is just a blantant and underhanded attack on all the citizens of the US by the elite liberal leaders.  Who care nothing for the rights of average citizens, or even of their constitutents, as long as they can maintain and grow their power.

Someone called Hillary a moderate.  A Moderate?  Only in some liberals far left mind.  She is the epitome of Grima Wormtongue, and the 'king' are the ones who allow her to whisper her poison in their ears.  Time to wake up people.  Hillary only cares about 1 person.  Hillary Rodham. Period.  Kerry is just her willing and idiot dupe.

politics
5,567 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's a few rights, if it means votes for leftists? Right?

Apparently we don't need a constitution, states' rights, or even a say at all. We'll just let Mamma Hillary and Papa John take care of us. Afterall, it's for our own good. ;~D
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

As an ex felon of almost two decades (got it right that time) ago, I have mixed feelings on this(my rights were restored because my sentence was expunged due to my having a GOOD judge). If you don't want the fed to take away states' rights in this regard, first give us BACK our rights, RE: the education, the environment, etc. Abraham Lincoln effectively established that the states have NO rights over 140 years ago (sadly). That's my first comment.

My second comment is that there is a constitutional rights issue here that does not hinge on race. To put it simply, I paid my debt to society, have paid taxes over many years, and to be denied the right to vote would amount to, among other things, taxation without representation. I feel the most reasonable response would be for states to allow the decision to be made on a case by case basis, via judicial review, time limits, whatever. It is patently absurd to deny the vote to a 17 year old crack dealer for the next 80 or more years based on his stupid actions as a youth.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005As an ex felon of almost two decades (got it right that time) ago, I have mixed feelings on this(my rights were restored because my sentence was expunged due to my having a GOOD judge). If you don't want the fed to take away states' rights in this regard, first give us BACK our rights, RE: the education, the environment, etc. Abraham Lincoln effectively established that the states have NO rights over 140 years ago (sadly). That's my first comment.My second comment is that there is a constitutional rights issue here that does not hinge on race. To put it simply, I paid my debt to society, have paid taxes over many years, and to be denied the right to vote would amount to, among other things, taxation without representation. I feel the most reasonable response would be for states to allow the decision to be made on a case by case basis, via judicial review, time limits, whatever. It is patently absurd to deny the vote to a 17 year old crack dealer for the next 80 or more years based on his stupid actions as a youth.


I totally agree with you gid. period, why does someone that is now 60 still have to pay for the folly of youth? That is not only unfair it's downright mean. and NOT in the spirit of freedom.

Also assuming that all ex-cons will vote democrate is a joke.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon this thread was already done by me. Here's the link: Link
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler,

I didn't author this thread, I only responded, and, in fact, my response was similar to the one I left on your thead.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doesnt matter, Both sides are equally as stupid as the other.

That makes no sense.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I feel the most reasonable response would be for states to allow the decision to be made on a case by case basis, via judicial review, time limits, whatever

And that is how it is in 48 states (the other 2 it is automatic).  This is not really an issue of should they be given the right to vote, in all cases, it is possible.  It is an issue of trumping the constitution because 'you feel like it'.  And that is not right, but it is what the Liberal ellite want to do so they can then dictate to the 'ignorant' masses their 'grand' vision of utopia.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gideon this thread was already done by me. Here's the link: Link

I know, that is why I specifically stayed away from who they would vote for, and instead focused on the issue of HRH Hillary and Kerry.

I was not and am not trying to hijack your thread. Sorry if that was not clear. I should have linked to your original article.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gideon this thread was already done by me. Here's the link: Link

I know, that is why I specifically stayed away from who they would vote for, and instead focused on the issue of HRH Hillary and Kerry.
I was not and am not trying to hijack your thread. Sorry if that was not clear. I should have linked to your original article.


It's okay Doc. And Gideon...my apologies for not reading the correct name.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
<
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
The felony lists were being used in Florida to bar voters who were not felons because their name happened to be similar to someone on the list. It was found the list was only 15% accurate and were not able to track hispanics who vote in the majority for Republicans. They had to finally admit the lists were untenable and had to rely on their voting machines to seal the election for them this time.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Convicted felons should never have the right to vote. If you can't respect the law, then you shouldn't have a say in the making of the law.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Convicted felons should never have the right to vote. If you can't respect the law, then you shouldn't have a say in the making of the law.


This is difficult issue. Your point about making the law is an important one. Now I'm openly right-wing and very "un-liberal," and for certain crimes I don't it's ever possible to completely pay one's debt to society, but do you suppose it's possible that some convicted felons will actually put their past behind them and change their lives for the better? If someone is convicted of robbery at age 20, serves 7 years in prison, is released and for the next 20 years shows a total change of heart and refrains from criminal activity, I don't see why his voting rights shouldn't be restored.

On the flip side, does serving jail time alone constitute paying one's debt to society? Are there some crimes so despicable that one has a permanent debt to society, one aspect of which includes suspension of voting rights?

I think the driving force behind such belief is cynicism towards politics and voting: people vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies. Unfortunately that cynicism is not unfounded. It's quite justified.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The felony lists were being used in Florida to bar voters who were not felons because their name happened to be similar to someone on the list. It was found the list was only 15% accurate and were not able to track hispanics who vote in the majority for Republicans. They had to finally admit the lists were untenable and had to rely on their voting machines to seal the election for them this time.


WHile what you say contains some truth (the felon list not being accurate), I doubt very seriously that it was off to the degree you portray. Do you have a reliable source for the 15% number? I think you may have it reversed.

In any event, that it was in error was reason enough to overhaul the system. That however does not address the issue of whether the feds can usurp what is a state's right to decide. When and how Felons are allowed to regain their voting rights.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Convicted felons should never have the right to vote. If you can't respect the law, then you shouldn't have a say in the making of the law.


Then give me back my tax money. What I did was 17 years ago, and was the result of some stupid decisions I made (if you have read much about my family background, I actually turned out pretty GOOD, on the whole). There's a HUGE problem with making blanket assertions like this; they don't take individual cases into account. You're calling for a LIFETIME suspension of "rights" due to youthful stupidity.

(I still contend the difference between me and the majority of kids my age is, I was caught, and I didn't have a good lawyer).

Anyway, do the words "taxation without representation" sound familiar? They should; we fought a revolution over it. Ex felons who have served their time should not automatically be relegated to second class citizen status.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyway, do the words "taxation without representation" sound familiar? They should; we fought a revolution over it. Ex felons who have served their time should not automatically be relegated to second class citizen status.


We've agreed that it should be a case-by-case basis, but the fact is, convicts do lose many inherent rights. Being locked away in a prison isn't exactly respecting someone's freedoms, now is it? Personally, I do believe that some offenses should relegate the convict to second class citizen. Depending of course how severe the crime was to the victims.

I have a police record from my wild and woolly teen years. I never got it expunged, so when I have filled out paperwork for security clearances and EMT background checks I still have to include them.

I do this on purpose, as an example to my kids. They have seen me fill out these forms, and seen that, even at my age, those offenses still effect my life.