Skip to comments.Something Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and Eric Holder Can All Agree on
Posted on 02/25/2014 6:11:46 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul brought his national crusade against the war on drugs back to his home state, giving testimony before the Kentucky state senate in favor of an amendment to restore voting rights to felons after they get out of prison.
The amendment, which state Republicans have forestalled for years, looks like it may finally pass. Today, only Kentucky and Virginia permanently strip felons' of their voting rights. Most states require a probationary period before felons can vote again, but states like Iowa and Florida have such punitive laws that they may as well be permanent. Only Maine and Vermont have no restrictions on felons voting, including when they are still in prison.
The original version of the Kentucky amendment would immediately restore voting rights to felons after they get out of prison. But once the amendment was introduced into the Republican-controlled state Senate, a substitute amendment was tacked on. The new version would delay vote restoration for felons by five years, provided the ex-convict did not commit any more crimes (felonies or misdemeanors) during that time.
State Rep. Jesse Crenshaw, who sponsored the original version, refused to present the substitute version of his own amendment. "You want to show the person that they are being welcomed back into society," Crenshaw told the committee. "The committee substitute does the exact opposite."
In his testimony, Paul gave a fact-based and level-headed critique of mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and the American justice system writ large—it could have doubled as a David Simon blog post. A few samples:
- "When you look at those who are being deprived of voting, I think it is disproportionately people of color."
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Rand Paul using the racist words of the left to push for felon voting rights.
Voting rights should be tied to firearms ownership rights. If you can’t trust them with a gun, why trust them with a ballot? (Answer: because felons tend to vote ‘rat, so the left wants them to vote, but the left doesn’t want them, nor anyone else, to own guns. But Republicans could show some spine here and require that one goes with the other. Same criteria, same ID requirements, same age limits, etc.)
This felon doesn’t vote democrat. However this felon isn’t a low info conservative too stupid to know that voting rights are up to the states.
First, I wrote “tend” to vote left, not “always” vote left. In particular, big cities have a lot of convicted felons, overwhelming the number in more conservative areas, and the inner city felon populations very much tend to vote left, being part of the FSA.
Second, the case be made to each State to connect voting rights and firearms ownership rights, and furthermore, this case can be made by federal employees, including members of Congress, AGs and even by the President, that the States should consider doing this. Of course I don’t expect the current President nor the AG to do so, for the first reason, but they could if they wanted to, and it might happen in at least some states if they did. (But I don’t expect this either, for the first reason.)
So I stand by everything I wrote, and offer that you reconsider your opinion that the idea comes from a low-information conservative who is too stupid to know better.
Anyone who wants to restrict 2nd amendment rights in any way is no conservative period.
Who says I want to restrict 2nd amendment rights in any way? If you can’t trust someone to have a gun, don’t let them out of prison. And don’t let them vote in prison, either. Let those who are out of prison buy guns without forcing everyone to prove their non-criminal. And change sentences so that people you don’t want buying guns, don’t get out of jail.
But, insofar as we presently have background checks for firearms transfers, nothing is lost if background checks are made a requirement for voting. Note that some people have claimed that having to show ID to vote amounts to “voter intimidation.” I wouldn’t mind hearing some politician claim that so much as having to show ID to buy a gun, let alone enduring a criminal background check, amounts to “intimidation” of those attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights. After all, voting is an important right, but so is gun onwership.
Do you still think I’m a low-information conservative who is just too stupid?
Apology accepted. I have always thought in the past that we were very much on the same side of the gun issue.
I’m just so used to seeing the same reactionary crap posted that I guess I see it where it doesn’t even exist. (Reactionary on my own part)
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]