It's your RIGHT to vote... Fight Voter Suppression
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Good point, but no, I was thinking more along the lines of armed robbery, rape, murder those types of felonies. I mean would a person who supports giving felons voting privileges, feel the same after being the victim of a serious felony. (Rape, murder, armed robbery or any other violent crime).
I did look around for the answer as far as why someone with a felony would be denied voting privileges (4th and 5th amendments came up quite a bit) but was left with that since in the commission of the felony the felon had denied their victim their rights, then they forfeited their own rights.
Or here's another hypothetical: What if you were strongly opposed to the strong DWI laws on the books. So opposed that you openly campaign for their repeal. Then your 12 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Do you now suddenly change your mind and campaign for stronger DWI laws.
Good point, but no, I was thinking more along the lines of armed robbery, rape, murder those types of felonies. I mean would a person who supports giving felons voting privileges, feel the same after being the victim of a serious felony. (Rape, murder, armed robbery or any other violent crime).
I did look around for the answer as far as why someone with a felony would be denied voting privileges (4th and 5th amendments came up quite a bit) but was left with that since in the commission of the felony the felon had denied their victim their rights, then they forfeited their own rights.
Or here's another hypothetical: What if you were strongly opposed to the strong DWI laws on the books. So opposed that you openly campaign for their repeal. Then your 12 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Do you now suddenly change your mind and campaign for stronger DWI laws.
Taking away voting rights for life is, a life sentence.
"Most" convicted felons had no victim. They committed crimes against the state only.
By far, most convicted felons are for possession, sale or intent to sell drugs.
The drug war and incarceration system that has bankrupted cities across the nation. Along with causing everyone's rights to be infringed by the incrementally, encroaching government hordes of Constitution trampling, drug warriors, that hunt humans for fun and profit. It also is the leading cause of corruption of police departments in the country.
Most drug dealers are white.
Most drug prisoners are black.
Neighborhood crimes are largely contributable to the fact that drugs are artificially super-valuable due to their illegality.
The US law enforcement and prison system self perpetuates their own artificially super-valuable existence.
I do not campaign for any new or stronger laws. We have far too many already.
Laws caused the massive number of DWIs .
Every neighborhood had a few local bars where the neighbors would come to drink, fight and socialize. The intolerant masses zoned them out of existence making it necessary to travel for these same services.
At the same time, our know it all government has made cheap, for hire, transportation unavailable by regulation and the medallion system.
That only leaves the travel to bars in your own vehicle option, the only option that many people can afford.
Writing more laws will only cause more, and bigger problems. How can laws expect the laws of physics, to not cause an equal and opposite reaction to the original intent?
Again, the laws made the mess, that caused the actions, that killed your hypothetical child.
Action equals reaction, always.
More laws equals more crime and more taxes, always.
Whether you lose your right to vote after committing a felony depends on what state the felony was committed in. In some states people who have committed felonies can vote.
Whether you lose your right to vote after committing a felony depends on what state the felony was committed in. In some states people who have committed felonies can vote.
That is true.
The problem with that, is that the Constitution calls for equal treatment under the law. Certain states taking away federal voting rights is not equal treatment under the law.
The felon became unequal under the law when they committed the felony then they were not equal with the rest of society.
Really? Is this what you are suggesting?
We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; until they commit a crime against any one of the states, whereby they become property of the state, and hold no Constitutional rights, for the rest of their lives.
Laws don't override the Constitution. The Constitution overrides all laws, state or federal.
Constitutional rights can't be legislated away by state laws.
Being convicted of a crime does not make you ineligible to hold Constitutional rights.
The states that take away the right to vote should be challenged in court with a billion dollar rights infringement lawsuit.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons. For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [2]
The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
It says congress, may enforce this article by appropriate legislation, not the states.
That is not proof that states have the power to take away the constitutional right to vote.
Challenges to voter requirement laws are currently being challenged.
Logged
