The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy, yet nearly six million Americans are denied that right, in many cases for life, because they have been convicted of a crime. Some states disenfranchise more than 7 percent of their adult citizens.
In an unflinching speech before a civil rights conference Tuesday morning, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. described this shameful aspect of our justice system for what it is: a “profoundly outdated” practice that is unjust and counterproductive.
Felon disenfranchisement laws lie at the intersection of two issues on which Mr. Holder has become increasingly outspoken: criminal justice reform and voting rights. While he has no direct authority to change state laws, the weight of his words can help pave a path for legislative action in both Congress and statehouses around the country.
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.
Considering that bringing the wrong kind of potted flower into the country can be a felony these days, I'm starting to agree.
So we shouldn't change the law on potted flowers, but fix the problem by giving back rights to all felons?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The 14th Amendment, Section 2:
SCOTUS ruled denying felons the right to vote was indeed Constitutional...based on the above. In thirteen states and DC, one's right to vote is re-asserted after incarceration.
It's obviously a state issue. Holder! Keep your nose out of it!
I know that, and I believe it's a fantastically unjust ruling that makes a mockery of the concept of repaying one's debt to society, and casts citizens into a limbo whereby they can be taxed and have laws applied to them, but forever have no voice in society in spite of being American citizens. (There's a popular phrase related to that, actually).
As for "state's rights," this is just code for "the states having the right to discriminate against its citizens."
So the Constitution is invalid if it doesn't agree with you?
Re-read my post if you felt I was unclear.
I asked you a question that requires a simple yes or no. Sorry if that complicates your life.
No, what you want is to simplify my argument to the point that it's stripped of its content. Sorry if I won't indulge you.
I asked you a question that requires a simple yes or no. Sorry if that complicates your life.
I'm aware of the 14th amendment, and I believe it's a fantastically unjust ruling that makes a mockery of the concept of repaying one's debt to society, and casts citizens into a limbo whereby they can be taxed and have laws applied to them, but forever have no voice in society in spite of being American citizens. (There's a popular phrase related to that, actually).
As for "state's rights," this is just code for "the states having the right to discriminate against its citizens."
Let me ask you, Maggie: do you believe that it's acceptable that someone who's served their sentence and repaid their debt to society should never be allowed to vote again?
No one should lose their right to vote at any point.
So the Constitution is invalid if it doesn't agree with you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
Thankfully your fellow citizens generally don't feel the same.
The democrat voting block - illegals, felons and anyone without ID. Hey, new bumpersticker!
Thankfully your fellow citizens generally don't feel the same.
The democrat voting block - illegals, felons and anyone without ID. Hey, new bumpersticker!
Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. Do you think this is just?
After the huge failures and resultant dislike and disrespect of Obama and the Liberals, the Democrats are now mining every subset group they can find for a few "victim" votes.
That is why the sudden hot eyed liberal fervor to restore voting rights to criminals, they are actually victims of the law, we just didn't realize it before. I wonder who these people would vote for.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?