Posted on 06/16/2010 12:22:11 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Every state in the country except two - Maine and Vermont - prohibits at least some felons from voting. In January, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the state of Washington is violating the federal Voting Rights Act by disenfranchising felons.
Now the full 9th Circuit has decided to hear the case, Farrakhan v. Gregoire.
The case has implications for all nine states within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, including California. Every other federal court of appeals so far has ruled against using the Voting Rights Act to give felons the right to vote.
The 9th Circuit should join them.
(Excerpt) Read more at juneauempire.com ...
If you did something against society and break the law it shows a problem or flaw in your mental or moral decision making. We should not let people who have demonstrated their inability to think of the good of society effect that very society with their views. In attacking society they show they are not fully part of it and should not be given the ability to move that society in a negative direction.
They already have. Second Amendment rights.
If the "government" i.e. the federal overlords claim they can cherry-pick who gets Second Amendment rights they will progress to the rest of YOUR rights, for whatever manufactured "crime" they deem you have committed. AND they will make it ex-post facto.
How does it go again? “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed…” Yea, right. Tell it to all the guys that have been screwed by “domestic violence laws” over an argument with some worthless wife.
Right now they are playing around with your First Amendment Rights like they are pool toys.
I think from the age of 21 on, they should keep track of every individuals credits/debits to the federal govt. Once you are taking out more than you contributed, then if you are on any kind of federal assistance (welfare, medicare, food stamps, social security, unemployment, etc.) you must give up your right to vote if want to continue to receive assistance.
Included in your debit for each year would be your portion for defense, for courts, federal prisons, customs, etc.
Include in your credits would be interest calculated for excess payments that exceeded your debits in prior years.
Think about it: A welfare recipient who wants to keep getting a check has to give up their right to vote. A retired person who reaches a point where they are collecting more from social security than they ever contributed (including interest on payments they made) would have to give up their right to vote to keep collecting social security.
It would mean that politicians could no longer buy votes from those that are voting themselves money.
I think along similar lines - a vote should be weighted according to the taxes one pays. If you're paying more, then you stand to lose more by rogue government action and thus should have a stonger vote than a perpetual welfare bum.
If you knew how may crimes, even felonies, you might inadvertently commit in a day, you’d be shocked. Or the fact that something you think would be an infraction or even just a misdemeanor, ends in a felony.
No non-violent crime should resent in permanant under-class status.
Considering what voters (real or fraudulent) put into the White House in 2008, I would have to say "yes".
Agreed.
The Lautenberg Law as a disgrace, as is the man.
Ayn Rand had it right.
The only way to control a man is to make him guilty of a crime.
Too many here think every crime is murder and that every punishment should be permanant.
So you are saying that no amount of rehabilitation makes a difference? Once a low-life always a low-life?
So, every soldier, sailor, professor at a military academy, FBI agent, Treasury agent, et al, should be denied the right to vote? Ummm....no.
Goddamit!
I can never spell “permanent” or “separate”.
And sometimes, not even a “low life”.
Go figure.
The punishment is what it is stated to by by statute at the time that the crime is committed. You're wanting to change the punishment ex-posto facto.
I'm sure that we could discuss what crimes ought to constitute felonies and what crimes should not, and I think that some felonies shouldn't be felonies at all, but the fact remains that the punishment for a given crime is no secret - it is public record. Any criminal that fails to acknowledge what might happen if he is caught is only hurting himself.
Overture, curtain, lights! If we can - we'll give them rights ... No more rehearsing or nursing a fart ... We'll trash every law by heart!
Overture, curtain, lights! This is it. We'll start some fights! And oh, what fights we'll pit! On with the farce, this is it!
Tonight what fights we'll pit! On with the farce, this is it!
No.
The loss of voting priveleges is not written into the statutes for larceny, drug dealing or even murder.
They’re incorporated into separate state statutes that pretty much cover ALL felonies, and quite a few misdemeanors now, IIRC. Yes, they are there at the time the felonies are committed and as they say, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
But, those statutes are only in effect until they’re rescinded/removed, and no statute is ever permanent and beyond change. With the exception of The States apportionment of US Senators, ANYTHING can be changed. The fact that many states account for a reinstatement of voting and gun rights says there’s room to debate this.
We know they will vote democrat.
They’re incorporated into separate state statutes...
They're not in the statutes, but they are??? They're public record, accessable to all. Trying to claim that because they're written elsewhere, they shouldn't apply doesn't work. This information is available to all citizens.
By chance, are you a felon? Or, perhaps, a trial lawyer?
What do you consider a “non violent” crime?
What if said crime effects others and they commit violence due to your actions? Like someone who is exercising their free speech rights and they insight a riot. Is that a non violent crime?
Drug usage?
Gambling?
Prostitution?
A person’s actions are their own.
Some people can read “Catcher in the Rye” and massacre a schoolbus full of nuns and orpans holding puppies. I don’t hold the writer responsible unless he specifically conspired to shoot those puppies.
If the actual crime (what you listed is fine) doesn’t involve crime, then it’s “non-violent”. Any subsequent crimes committed by persons involved are immaterial. Even trying to link causality to another, violent crime is too scary to think about. Kiss all of our rights goodbye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.