http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/1148791...-felons-prison
Pretty bold but will it stand and will it change anything?
Virginia Gov. Reinstates Felon Voting Right
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/1148791...-felons-prison
Pretty bold but will it stand and will it change anything?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's a pretty ridiculous executive order.Originally Posted by Aimless
Not a big surprise though, Democrats like the idea of felons voting because they tend to vote for Democrats. Pretty blatant self serving move.
Felons in prison should not have the right to vote, but once time is served then there is no reason to deny them the vote for the rest of their life. If they're guilty of something that makes them incapable of voting, why are they not behind bars?
So once someone is out of prison there should be no restrictions on anything for them?
See the second sentence in that quote for clarification on why your question is dumb.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I guess you haven't heard of probation or parole?
What about it? The executive order under discussion doesn't touch that prohibition. It reinstates suffrage to those whose sentence is completed. That means not until any relevant probation or parole are also completed, as those are inclusive in any sentence. The article literally spelled that out for you.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I assumed RB was thinking of people who were no longer on probation or parole. The order doesn't reinstate voting rights for felons on parole.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes I have and that is complete under this situation, though even then if someone is to be trusted on release with probation then I'd be OK with them voting, but certainly once the probation is over and time has been served.
I agree. Once your sentence is served, you ought to be allowed to return to society as a full citizen.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Loki never answered but I'll ask you. Thoughts on felons being allowed guns? Thoughts on sex offenders not being allowed near certain places? For clarity I'm not hypocritical about this I have no problems with felons being barred from owning guns or rapists and molesters being forced to live away from schools. I'm curious if you are.
The punishment must be related to the crime. Please explain to me the link between voting and committing a felony. What about being a felon makes one a dangerous voter? And please no nonsense about felons voting in a way that benefits them. So does everyone else.
I wouldn't oppose letting those in jail vote. But I also accept that people serving time are being punished for "rebellion" against the body politic, which might reasonably include being temporarily deprived of voting rights.
Hope is the denial of reality
Either the State can deprive felons of certain rights as a consequence or they can't. This is a purely binary position YES/NO. Now if the answer is "Yes the state can take away the rights of felons" and you make the argument that 'well this right should be taken away and this right shouldn't' FINE, that's an argument you can have. But you simply cannot say the State isn't allowed to take away felon's rights period, and then suggest that some rights shouldn't be included. That's hypocrisy. The right to own guns is no weaker than the right to vote.
Lewks reasoning works the other way too, you could easily say the GOP is opposed because it would cost them elections, not because they think it's right.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Oh you'll find the GOP is in favor for sticking it to felons for a lot of other reasons too.
And you'll find the democratic party is in favor for abolishing it for a lot of other reasons, too.
By the way, over here people can be barred from voting (or standing for election) as an additional sentence imposed by a judge. It's rare though, last time it was done on a large scale was against members of the national socialist party after the second world war. Recently it was asked for by the prosecutor in a terrorism trial (but the defendant was acquitted anyway so no sentence was imposed ). It is only for people convicted of serious crimes that undermine the foundation of the state, which seems okay to me.
Last edited by Flixy; 04-28-2016 at 10:28 AM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
To understand how ridiculous it is to restrict felons from having some of our basic rights, like voting, look at Lewk's other thread about the soda thief. That guy would be a felon, 18 years old and likely still in high school and no longer allowed to vote if convicted.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-24-2016 at 07:21 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Voting is a right, not a privilege. I fail to see the merit of any argument that forbids people who are not actively incarcerated from being able to exercise that right. Bad people don't lose their rights. There's no moral test for suffrage. There's no mental capacity test for suffrage. There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
Hope is the denial of reality
Bingo. Further, legitimacy in democracy relies on that right being exercised as broadly as possible.
Not much point in them doing so since if they did rule otherwise, it would get taken down by the states and Congress in fairly short order. Perfect example case for trying to replicate the creation of the 11th amendment. So SCOTUS has little reason to bother.There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Should bad people lose the right to bear arms? How about the right to assembly near schools? (In the case of child predators).
If you can point to a threat directly connected to their illegal behavior, then sure (I'd still want a higher standard than the indiscriminate bans we see today). Are you threatened by felons voting?
Hope is the denial of reality
Where in the bill of rights does 'point to a threat directly connected to their illegal behavior' come in?
There isn't even a proper argument for denying actively incarcerated people from voting.
Just as an example: A political candidate proposes the legalization of a drug. And yet the people who are in jail for, say, merely the possession of said drug are not allowed to vote for the candidate.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
That's actually precisely why they should be denied the right to vote.
What you just wrote is essentially: Just as an example: A political candidate proposes the legalization of a crime. And yet the people who are in jail for, say, merely the breaking of said law are not allowed to vote for the candidate.
If a crime is to be legalised it should be done because its right to legalise it, as viewed by our law-abiding citizens. Not because the criminals who didn't abide by the law want to get away with breaking the law. I'm all for drug legalisation (not decriminalisation but full on legalisation) within reason but it should be decided by our law-abiding citizens.
If the Supreme Court did rule that way, we can always condition some federal transfers on states allowing ex-felons to vote in federal elections. And one would hope that state courts would learn to read their own constitutions instead of pandering to the "think of the children" mob.
Hope is the denial of reality
What would their reasoning be for such a ruling, considering they've previously ruled that the 14th amendment doesn't necessarily guarantee felons the right to vote?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They can reread the 14th amendment and the Federalist Papers. Along with Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Hope is the denial of reality
I want to see an end to these practices as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure I see how that might actually be achieved through the SCOTUS.
The court has previously ruled (in Richardson v Ramirez) that section 2 of the 14th amendment implicitly affirms a state's right to deny criminals the right to vote:
It's also declined to apply strict scrutiny to the matter of felon disenfranchisement.Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
What arguments could be presented to the court that might make it rule differently today? I'm just trying to understand.
This paper suggests that section 2 is in fact no longer valid and that if the matter of felon disenfranchisment were re-examined the SCOTUS may end up ruling differently: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=433580
The dissent in the Richardson case seems to argue, among other things, that, even if the text of section 2 can be read as authorizing felon disenfranchisement, the court has otherwise found (albeit inconsistently) that any significant justification for disenfranchisement is or should be invalid: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...8/24/case.html
But is the present court likely to be persuaded by such arguments?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is beyond stupid.
I agree paroled criminals should not lose their right to vote. However, it seems this restriction was written into the state constitution. So the executive order is arguably illegal and subject to court challenge. This should be changed by changing the law.
Another day, another Democrat subverting the political process in the name of "fairness", free stuff and votes.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote