Posted on 06/26/2014 11:39:25 AM PDT by jazusamo
I wrote here about Rand Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 year’s decision invalidating part of an Arizona voting law – … rebuts Senator Paul’s position. See, in particular, the first two paragraphs of part III of Justice Scalia’s opinion.
Clegg goes on to point out that Paul’s 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, Clegg’s concluding question is a fair one: “does Senator Paul take the Constitution less seriously than Eric Holder?”
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.