Skip to comments.RAND PAUL: TO THE LEFT OF ERIC HOLDER ON FELON ENFRANCHISEMENT
Posted on 06/26/2014 11:39:25 AM PDT by jazusamo
I wrote here about Rand Pauls unconstitutional plan to propose federal legislation that would enfranchise some felons. Now, Sen. Paul has addressedthe constitutional issue posed by such legislation.
He argues, in essence, that states decide who votes in state elections, but the federal government has the final say on who can vote in federal elections. Roger Clegg makes short work of Pauls contention:
The U.S. Constitution itself explicitly gives the authority to decide who votes in federal elections to the states (consistent, of course, with other constitutional guarantees, like the prohibition of poll taxes). And the recent Supreme Court decision that he cites to the contrary last years decision invalidating part of an Arizona voting law rebuts Senator Pauls position. See, in particular, the first two paragraphs of part III of Justice Scalias opinion.
Clegg goes on to point out that Pauls position on the constitutionality of federal legislation to decide who votes in federal elections is so off-base that even Attorney General Holder, who is desperate to swell the voter lists with felons, does not embrace it. When he called for felon enfranchisement, Holder limited his plea to the states and did not call for federal legislation.
Thus, Cleggs concluding question is a fair one: does Senator Paul take the Constitution less seriously than Eric Holder?
Please step aside, Rand. Your 15 minutes of fraud are up.
There should be a way for felons to get their franchise restored, but it should not be quick or easy.
No more Bushs, no more Clintons, no more Pauls.
You’d think Paul would have given a little thought to some of the statements he’s been making lately but then maybe he has and is after more votes. No thanks.
That Paul boy ain’t right....
Rand is a looney as his old man !
And I thought his dad was the nutty one...
Why is it that we have to get. A daily dose of this guy here on a conservative forum?
There's only one that stays screwed up... the forbiddance to own a gun.
Marion Barry won his post-prison term as mayor because his campaign figures out that the second largest DC demographic voting group were voters with family and friends in prison. He tailored his campaign almost exclusively at them.
“There should be a way for felons to get their franchise restored, but it should not be quick or easy.”
No there shouldn’t. The whole NICS travesty is justified by the idea the felons can never ever have access to a firearm ever again. If they can’t be trusted with a gun why should they be trusted to care enough about the society that they knowingly betrayed to be trusted with the power of a vote?
Felon enfranchisement is a vastly unfair and dengerous idea that only serves the purposes of the DNC, as most felons are Democrats. No on should ever support or propose such a thing.
Pretty much. He’s been going well-off the rails lately, especially.
I believe it’s a good thing to show a self described conservative to be a fraud when they are.
No, it does not. That decision says:
When Congress legislates with respect to the Times, Places and Manner of holding congressional elections, it necessarily displaces some element of a preexisting legal regime erected by the States. Because the power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to preempt (the states), the reasonable assumption is that the statutory text (of the National Voter Registration Act) accurately communicates the scope of Congresss preemptive intent.Rand is legally correct on this one. If Congress chooses to write legislation that affects the manner in which states hold federal elections, it supersedes state laws.
The power of Congress over the Times, Places and Manner of congressional elections is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.
(Parenthetical additions are mine.)
The Paul Rand nut doesn’t fall far from the tree ... LOL ...
I used to be no guns for ex-cons, never.
But I thought about it.
If an ex-con is going to backslide, all the laws in the world won’t keep him from getting a gun. This is a basis for our overall opposition to gun-control: Criminals don’t obey gun-control laws. Also, the Feds are working very hard at making felons of us all!
And if an ex-con is going straight, he may need the means of self defense even more than we do.
I am less sanguine about returning the their vote franchise.
Might help out if the '16 GOP field gets clogged up next year.
Why did I not read what Rand is proposing? Doh! He’s wrong about Congress being able legislate who can vote.
So ignore my previous post.
Thanks...I have one question.
Paul’s bill supposedly would enfranchise nonviolent felons not only convicted in federal courts but also state courts, can his proposed bill cover state felons as well as federal felons?
Thanks again, I should have read on down before I posted my above question.
It does seem genetic.
Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate.
(Emphasis in the original.)
No need for any new proposal of legislation. The corrupt democratic party would be issuing voter’s rights to criminals that do not quality for restoration of their voting rights (some citizens do deserve such). Rand Paul should flip party.
Prison releasees that don’t have gun rights can secure a gun to commit a crime, but it sure interferes with them readopting the life of owning guns and keeping them around, displaying them and using them as part of their “muscle”.
I have known a lot of ex-cons that do not want to be caught with a gun in their house or car, or on their person, and considering how physical and threatening felons and ex-con types generally like to be, both before and after doing time, it makes for weakened status for them when they return to their blue collar type world, it has a sobering effect on them in their social interactions.
As it should be. As long as they are in jail, their rights are, and should be restricted.
There's only one that stays screwed up... the forbiddance to own a gun.
Amazing isn't it. Kinda shows the real purpose of the policy. Any free citizen should have all his rights restored.
Hard to say, but he apparently takes it about as seriously as Barack Obama.
AIUI ... once you did your time, you got all your rights back ... parole didn't count ... y'had to wrap it up.
Then came a bunch o'scared white guys that passed the GCA of 68 and a felon (just about any criminal) lost his 2nd ammendment.
I would agree.
And was crime lower or higher before the GCA68?
Let a felon have his arms back.
It does discriminate against the blacks and Hispanics.
You have to give Chaim Ben Pesach credit. When everyone here (including me) was in love with Rand Paul for his anti-drone filibuster, Chaim was telling everyone that Rand was a left winger.
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.