Skip to comments.Glenn Beck: Expanding Obama's Coalition (voting rights for ex-cons)
Posted on 03/25/2010 1:57:29 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," March 24, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: There is a proposal that is getting very little attention. It's not time yet, it's kind of softening the earth. It's called the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 wow, it sounds patriotic, doesn't it?
So, what's the act?
It's a proposal to restore voting rights of up to 4 million released felons.
Now, here's the opening salvo from Sunday's New York Times editorial:
"Millions of ex-offenders who have released from prison are denied the right to vote. That undercuts efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into mainstream society and it goes against one of democracy's most fundamental principles that the government should rule with the consent of the governed."
I can't believe they did this on the day they voted for health care.
It goes against the fundamental principles of democracy? Maybe. What about the republic?
With your rights come responsibilities. You must abide by certain rules and laws and when you break 'em, you lose certain rights.
Now, let me ask The New York Times: You are saying that we should restore because you've paid your dues, you're going to restore the rights. All of them? Are you going to restore their right to the Second Amendment or is it only the voting rights?
That's disenfranchisement, isn't it?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Only voting rights? Hmmmmmm seems a little fishy...ehh?
Non-violent offender felons cannot own a gun (a Constitutional right) but ALL felons, regardless of nature of the crime, can vote in some states.
Something is wrong with that equation. Either you have undeniable rights or you don’t. Either you’ve served your time or you haven’t.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. If it prevents one murderer from pulling the trigger because “gosh, I may lose my right to vote”, it’s worth it.
How difficult would it be for somebody to attach a rider to the bill?
ALL felons, regardless of nature of the crime, can vote in some states.
I'm not against restoring all rights to felons who have completed their sentence--payed their debt, as they say. I'm not sure that current law doesn't allow that already.
I'm against restoring voting rights to felons on parole, early release or similar arrangements until the terms of their original sentence has ended. For example, someone paroled 5 years after being sentenced to 10 should not vote until the full 10 years has passed.
Can anyone say what the current standards are?
This may be a good thing, because in a few yours speaking against the administration may well be a felony.
Standards vary by state. I could see permitting felons to vote if other rights weren’t still being stripped from felons who’ve served their time.
Whereas the State says they have a compelling interest to deny a concealed carry permit to some people with specific details in their background history (assault, even without conviction, etc), I don’t see how inalienable rights (posession of a fiream in the home) can be abridged after a term of parole has ended.
The requirements to be able to vote have changed a number of times (used to have to hold property, voting age, women couldn’t vote, poll tax, etc.), sometimes by Constitutional amendment. Felony conviction is a result of personal action, not ethnic status or economic class (despite what some say about social justice). Since it is “constitutional”, there is no Constitutional guaranty that everyone over 18 is entitled to vote.
So why should they be able to vote IF they cannot exercise their Constitutional protected right of self-defense in the home?
From what I heard, felons can petition the BATF to restore their gun rights.
It’s up to the BATF on a case by case basis. I’m curious about the percentage of successful petitioners.
I entirely agree. That's why I'm wondering if someone could attach a rider to the bill restoring all rights, not just the right to vote.
If not that, maybe a lawsuit?
My impression is that this bill is designed to increase the Dem voter rolls, so I would expect the people in mind are parolees. But, if passing this simultaneously granted the right to own firearms, I don't think it could win.
Agree. The goal is to bring more voters into the Democrat ranks and help them in the slim margin campaigns.
And maybe a rider is what it would take to shut the whole thing down. I just don’t like the double standard from the Democrats (gun grabbers).
As Glenn said, of you don’t also reinstate their 2nd amendment rights, it is still “disenfranchisement”.