Replies

Of course, the real reasons he wants to see felons voting NOW are that (1) the majority of them would likely vote for the 'Rats and (2) the 'Rats are desperate for votes - legal or illegal - in November's midterm elections, where they see themselves in deep trouble.

I don't care about that — there's a justice-principle here that is being violated (and a legal one, in some cases¹).
You see, to serve one's sentence is to have paid for the crime, to forever strip a person of the ability to defend himself as other citizens do would alone make him a 2nd-class citizen… and this is further underscored by stripping them of the ability to vote or serve on juries.

In the matter of Holder's pushing it [or any other person's (save God's) endorsement/condmnation] is irrelevant to its morality. — this is to say that, like truth, justice is not dependent on the whims of the majority (or opinion of the minority).

This issue of whether felons should be allowed to vote has always been a matter of state law. Does Holder now advocate that there be a federal statute which mandates that all states allow felons (presumably only those who are not currently imprisoned) to vote? If so, it would seem to be yet another attack on the Tenth Amendment.

Not so — the GCA is a federal law which imposes the restrictions to keep and bear arms upon ex-felons.

¹ In particular, the stripping of the right to keep and bear arms from the [ex-]felon is an ex post facto law because it imposed its strictures on those who had already served their sentence (or were then serving it) — the Constitution prohibits ex post facto law both to the federal government and to the states… moreover, the GCA prohibited persons include those who have not yet been convicted of a crime.

I understand your tack. I respectfully disagree. Felons have generally demonstrated moral turpitude, total disrespect for the laws of God and men, a desire to scam the system, and a general lack of judgement. A felon will tend to elect people just like them and we have enough criminals in government now. So I do not support restoring a felons’ right to vote.

I was referring only to the issue of whether felons should be allowed to vote as having always been a matter of state law (NOT to the issue of whether felons should be allowed to keep and bear arms). In fact, currently there are significant variations among the states with regard to election laws as they relate to felony offenders.

I can see your point that the federal GCA (Gun Control Act, I presume) can be considered as an ex post facto law when applied to felony offenders who were convicted of crimes before the law was enacted. Regretfully, however, the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws has been held by the courts to be applicable only to criminal statutes. Don't know if the ex post facto issue has been already litigated with respect to that provision of the CGA, but if it has, I would be kind of surprised if it was held to be in violation of the ex post facto clause - simply because federal courts lean toward statist interpretations of the Constitution nowadays.