Posted on 04/04/2010 11:37:47 PM PDT by ConservativeJen
Apparently unaware that the phrase “letting the inmates run the asylum” is supposed to be a joke, the Democrats are turning to a fresh source of votes to replace those of middle class Americans they are losing: convicted felons. Congressional Democrats are pushing an unconstitutional law that would give criminals as much of a say as their victims in how society is run.
The proposed law, H.R. 3335, prevents states from barring felons from voting by mandating that “The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.” Convicted felons not currently in jail, including those in ‘residential community treatment centers’ as well as those on parole and probation, will be added to the voting rolls.
The bill sponsored by Michigan Democrat John Conyers would allow his wife, a former Detroit City Council member who plead guilty to felony charges of bribery, to vote after she completes her prison sentence. The bill is co-sponsored by Alcee Hastings, a disgraced former federal judge who was removed for corruption and perjury; Charles Rangel, who has been accused of tax fraud; and Barney Frank, who once became embroiled in controversy when it was revealed that a prostitute ring had been run out of his apartment.
Even proponents of felon voting admit that "Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is a heritage from ancient Greek and Roman traditions carried into Europe." People who have violated the basic laws that hold society together should not be permitted to have an equal say as law abiding citizens in electing the officials who enforce and write laws. We should not allow convicted murderers, rapists, and thieves to tip the balance of who becomes President of the United States and which party controls Congress.
In 2000 in Florida, around 5,000 convicts voted illegally, about 80% of whom were registered Democrats. Had the over 600,000 felons in Florida been able to vote legally, they would easily have overcome George Bush’s slim margin of victory. In the 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington, the Seattle Times found 129 voters who were confirmed to have voted illegally, in just the two counties they surveyed. That year, the Democrat won the race by 129 votes. In states that allow some form of felon voting, Bill Clinton won 86% of the felon vote in 1992 and 93% in 1996.
A study by Northwestern University and the University of Minnesota discovered that Democrats could have turned numerous defeats at the ballot box into victories by giving the vote to convicted felons. For example, Republican Senators John Warner of Virginia and John Tower of Texas would never have first won election in 1978 if felons had voted in those elections, which would have given Democrats a 60 vote super-majority. The Republican Senate majorities of 4-10 seats from 1994-2004 would never have happened; instead the Democrats would have held majorities of the same margin.
The study even found that if in the 1960 election “had the contemporary disfranchisement regime prevailed at the time” then “it is very likely that Richard M. Nixon would have won the popular vote and possible that he may have won the electoral vote.” The ‘dead people vote’ in Chicago would have been irrelevant, with Nixon winning Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Delaware. Had this happened, Lyndon Johnson would almost certainly never have become President and implemented his welfare state, not to mention the implications regarding Vietnam..
Prominent legal scholars doubt whether this proposed law is even Constitutional. Roger Clegg, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, doubts the claim by the bill’s authors that the law is authorized byArticle I, Section 4 ofthe Constitution. Article I, Section 4 only authorizes the federal government to regulate “the times, the places, and the manner of elections,” not who is allowed to vote in them.
James Madison wrote that to leave voting requirements open to the “regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” Alexander Hamilton stated that the federal power under Article I, Section 4 was limited to only the ‘time, place, and manner’ of elections and that “the qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen . . . are defined and fixed in the Constitution.” The Constitution currently forbids exclusion from voting due to age, race, or gender. Under the 10th Amendment all other qualifications are reserved to the states. For example, many states granted the vote to women, racial minorities, and 18-21 year olds before the federal Constitution was amended to allow them to do so. Many states also had property requirements for decades after the ratification of the Constitution.
Proponents of the bill to allow felons to vote alternatively claim it may be Constitutional under the 14th and 15th Amendments, which enable Congress to pass laws to enforce the amendments against racial discrimination. The left wing groups ‘Human Rights Watch’ and ‘The Sentencing Project’ argue that since black men are more likely to commit felonies, laws that disenfranchise felons have a very disproportionate racial effect.
However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that laws disenfranchising felons do not violate the 14th or 15th Amendments. The Supreme Court ruled when considering the 1985 Hunter v. Underwood case regarding an Alabama law disenfranchising criminals that a state’s “action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact.” The Supreme Court also specifically said that laws disenfranchising felons do not violate the 14th Amendment in the 1974 case Richardson v Ramirez. Given that state laws which disenfranchised felons have been found by the Supreme Court to be consistent with these Amendments, Congress has absolutely no justification or authorization under either the 14th or 15th Amendments to pass this law.
The proposed federal law to force states to allow felons to vote is unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. A rapist should not have the same vote as his victim. The mafia, MS-13, the Bloods and the Crips should not be the constituencies which swing elections.
They have been trying to have felons vote in California and Florida.
>>They have been trying to have felons vote in California and Florida.<<
Why not? They have felons as congresspeople and as advisers.
And I defy you to find a California democratic legislator that has NOT committed a felony just to stay in office. For that matter, a democrat anywhere that hasn’t.
Well isn’t there a convicted Congressman ‘Somewhere’ legislating?
Not sure but Alcee Hastings of Floor-E-Duh .. isn’t he a felon or just an impeached judge?
No surprise here.
It’s going to be the only way they can be elected in November.
it is the only way most of the Corruptocrat senators and congresscritters will be allowed to vote seeing as most of them are felons.
Time for all of us to contact our representatives again, I suppose.
Convicted felons are likely to vote for unconvicted felons. Or, at least the Democrats hope so.
Contacting the people might make more sense. The reps may not listen but the people will vote. Getting enough outraged citizens to say they’ll flood out any forced felon vote (assuming it doesn’t get hung up immediately in court) might mean more.
Knew that was coming. Amnesty for illegals and convicted felons = new Dem voting base.
Democrats were always The Criminal Party. They should change the party name.
Much publicity hay could be made of this. Look, the rats are so bad they need criminals to keep them in office.
The answer is simple.
Insist that anyone who may legally vote must also be allowed to legally own firearms.
If some one is too dangerous to allow arms, they are certainly also too dangerous to allow to vote.
Violence with firearms is momentary and locally contained.
Violence committed via voting is much more permanent, and affects a much larger number of victims!
I feel that once a man has served his sentence, lived up to the conditions of his parole, he should be allowed to vote. He should also be allowed to possess firearms. If a man cannot have his full rights as an American restored then why let him go?
In Texas, felons are allowed to vote once all conditions of their sentences are met. I am a convicted felon and I have been voting since 2006.
Constitutionally it ought to be left to the states to choose. Also you’re one of the special few who would vote Republican; most of the folks who had been your cellmates would go overwhelmingly Rat. I think the Rats want to even open it up to parolees and probationers, anyone who isn’t physically in a prison or jail.
90% of all democrats are already felons. they won’t gain many votes.....and that includes congress critters..
We’d wish that were the size of it. They’re talking about adding 4 million almost exclusively Rat votes.
Also, a new pool of potential political candidates. Water seeks it’s own level.
Umm, this sort of thing used to be taken care of by a constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, the Feds don’t have that power.
Oh, wait, who pays attention to that silly old thing these days???
Yeah, I'm sure the Democrats and their RINO fellow travelers will really listen to us peons...
So when convicted felons have served their sentence they will be able to defend themselves with a gun too, right?
From the article: “The left wing groups ‘Human Rights Watch’ and ‘The Sentencing Project’ argue that since black men are more likely to commit felonies, laws that disenfranchise felons have a very disproportionate racial effect.”
These groups say that committing felonies is caused by race? Where is the outrage by, for example, the Black Congressional Caucus, or the NAACP. I am a white guy, but I feel confident that there is nothing inherent in one’s race that causes one to commit crime. Do these groups not even think a little about what they are saying?
If you still needed evidence of the FACT that communist democrats are working to destroy this country, then this ought to settle it for you.
A felon can cancel my vote?! My wife’s vote?!
I would ask if they are trying to start a civil war, but I know that any chaos will do for these rotten bastards!
Disgusting, un-American, anti-American, treasonous communists!
Domestic enemies—as good as they get.
If you still needed evidence of the FACT that communist democrats are working to destroy this country, then this ought to settle it for you.
A felon can cancel my vote?! My wife’s vote?!
I would ask if they are trying to start a civil war, but I know that any chaos will do for these rotten bastards!
Disgusting, un-American, anti-American, treasonous communists!
Domestic enemies—as good as they get.
“Dems need felons to vote for them now “
That’s because the majority of the Dumb’s are themselves
felons. Amen.
I’ll make ‘em a bargain: Lose the Gun Control Act of 1968, and we can talk about felons voting.
It must be something to vote as a democrat today.
Yes. The plan is to win with the votes of illegals and felons. Nice system, huh?
We need to entirely rebrand them.
Wonder if they’ll also demand that they restore their second amendment rights as well? Brazen isn’t the word. These rats could care less what America thinks. They’re concerned with but two things: power and control, by any means necessary.
What the comieRATS are trying to pull off here is different. We'd have Voting Booths in every State & Fed Prison.
I don't mention County Jails as most 'inmates' there are awaiting trial and haven't been convicted of anything, 'yet'. Except for places like the Cook County Jail and out in LA or Rikers in NYC. (Its a mathematical given those people aren't newbies to Felony crime.)
Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed for crimes committed while a federal judge, but he was acquitted in his criminal trial. So, technically, he’s not a felon, and was able to vote for himself for Congress.
the unconvicted felons are already voting...in Congress
‘Felony’ is just too arbitrary a term today to justify taking away someone’s rights. In places like New York and Chicago, the term ‘felony self-defense’ isn’t much of an exaggeration.
Stick an amendment on that bill stating that their second amendment rights to own firearms are also fully restored.
Felons = the Democrat Party BASE
I have to agree with you on this, If a person is trusted to return to society from prison, then ALL his rights should be restored. And I’m not a convicted felon.
Democrats could be fooled, (they aren’t very bright,usually)as there is no guarantee that said felons will vote dem.If a convict is released into society,and gets a job, and starts becoming a responsible citizen and sees his paycheck being heisted to fund entitlements that are totally irrevelant to his well-being, and becomes familiar with the issues, he may just vote conservative.
My opinions?
1. If people are released into society, restore thier rights. If it is felt that you can’t, then quite obviously, they haven’t been locked up long enough.
2.Stop most background checks. Background checks should be reserved only for certain jobs. If a person who is released from prison can’t go to work, his chances are FAR greater of repeat offence.I work in the oilfield in Texas, and I see background checks used that disqualify otherwise perfectly suitable employees in jobs that the check is really pretty irrelevant.
3.Restore firearm rights. All the gun laws have ever done is make stupid people feel good about themselves. Anyone walking the streets as a free person should be able to own personal firearms. There is no evidence to convince me that a person who wanted to commit a crime couldn’t get a weapon due to gun laws. If I was a convict, and I wanted a firearm, I could probably have one in ten minutes, provided I had money. Nation Instant Check is more BS to increase govt. and provide non-productive govt.jobs to suck up taxpayers money.
4. Child molesters are an exception. I am not sure they can ever be totally trusted in society, so trying to keep tabs on their whereabouts might be a good idea. Or maybe never release them?
5 IMHO.
People just like us sit on the juries to decide how long that sentence should be, and after it is served and that person is released, the answer to that question is Yes.
No. REQUIRE them to be armed.
I support this. I fully believe that one of the things the Dems will do is to find a way to criminalize behavior they don’t like, especially activities of their opponents. There may come a time when you look back and are thankful for this change.
They can, in their home.
If convicted felons (after release and after end of parole) should not be denied their “right” to vote, why are they denied their constitutional right to bear arms?
G.Gordon Liddy is not allowed to own any guns (even though his was a nonviolent offense).
He will brag at length about the firearms that MRS. Liddy owns and keeps about the house.
But I wonder if she could be charged with providing a felon access to firearms.
Only if Felons get all of their rights back. All or nothing folks.
I don''t think so. I saw a study somewhere (wish I had saved it) that said that the proportion of D voters was somewhere in the range of 60 - 80% (my best recollection of the results). The proportion of R voters was rather larger than I would have expected.
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.