Should Ex-Felons Get to Vote?

[shuamort]

This hinges completely on your ability to show that the law was enacted with the intent to deprive -blacks- of their right to vote.

You mean besides the MULTIPLE QUOTES I HAVE GIVEN? Feel free to find quotes and sites that refute my point of view.

So?
Your argument is based on "demographics" - that most felons are X, so the law must have been written to deprive X of the right to vote.
X = men.

Apparently you didn't read the decision, my points that explained why the "man" point is null and void, and the basis of the Floridian laws.

So you have said.
I haven't seen anything to back that up. however.

****in'A, go back and read my points. If you're chosing to be aliterate, do it on your own time.

 

[George_Washington]

If you're chosing to be aliterate, do it on your own time.

lol If you're going to call someone illiterate, try spelling it right first. I think M14 Shooter has offered valid points.

My point about the Jim Crow laws and the idea of this issue being racist is, the issue is not racist in itself. Sure it can be used that way but so can hundreds of other laws. Is that reason enough to throw out the idea altogether?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You mean besides the MULTIPLE QUOTES I HAVE GIVEN? Feel free to find quotes and sites that refute my point of view.

The quotes you have given don't show the legislative intent. They SAY that the laws were enacted because of X Y and Z, but that doesnt mean much to me. I want you to show me what the people that passed the laws had to say, not some organization's interpretation of the laws.

Apparently you didn't read the decision, my points that explained why the "man" point is null and void, and the basis of the Floridian laws.

You mean Richardson v. Ramirez?
We therefore hold that the Supreme Court of California erred in concluding that California may no longer, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclude from the franchise convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles
How does this support your position regarding discrimination by gender?

Hunter v Underwood?
Still not seeing the part that supports your point regarding gender.

This ALL boils down to you proving that the legislative intent of the state laws in question is to deny certain demographics the right to vote. 48 of 50 states prohibit felons the right to vote in some way shape or form - I'd LOVE to see you show that all 48 of these states do so in a deliberate attempt to keep blacks (but not men) from voting.

CLEARLY the Constitution allows states to deny this right, so loing as due process is met. Any claim of discrimination is up to YOU to substantiate.

 

[shuamort]

In Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985), the court found that the right to disenfranchise felons was not absolute. Specifically, the court found that a disenfranchisement law reflecting "purposeful racial discrimination" was not constitutional. So if one could show that the pattern of convictions of blacks vs. whites in the war on drugs or otherwise showed "purposeful racial discrimination," one might be able to get Wild Bill and the Supremes to reconsider. When you go to argue the case, be sure to point out that states with tough anti-felon laws tend to be located in the South and that a lot of these laws were beefed up around the turn of the century to include crimes thought to be more commonly committed by blacks. But you probably won't win. Your better bet is to get a change to the laws of your state. Good luck--not a lot of legislators want to put "I'll give felons more rights!" on their campaign posters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985), the court found that the right to disenfranchise felons was not absolute. Specifically, the court found that a disenfranchisement law reflecting "purposeful racial discrimination" was not constitutional.[/quoite]
That's been established.

So if one could show that the pattern of convictions of blacks vs. whites in the war on drugs or otherwise showed "purposeful racial discrimination," one might be able to get Wild Bill and the Supremes to reconsider.

Yes. And of that, I havent seen any evidence.
Still looking for that primary source material.

 

[shuamort]

Yes. And of that, I havent seen any evidence.
Still looking for that primary source material.

Feel free to site sources that argue against my debate. So far you've been dismissive without proof.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Feel free to site sources that argue against my debate. So far you've been dismissive without proof.

I dont have to prove anything -- YOU do.

It's your argument that the laws in question likely violate the 15th amendment, since they were enacted with the intention of denying blacks the right to vote.

You haven't povided any primary source material to back up that claim.

When you do, I'll respond. Until then, the ball is in your court.

 

[shuamort]

I dont have to prove anything -- YOU do.

It's your argument that the laws in question likely violate the 15th amendment, since they were enacted with the intention of denying blacks the right to vote.

You haven't povided any primary source material to back up that claim.

When you do, I'll respond. Until then, the ball is in your court.

I HAVE proved my claim with sites. Feel free to handwave all you want. Until you have proof that mine is erroneous, you lose. Enjoy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I HAVE proved my claim with sites.

You havent cited any primary source material regarding the intent of the laws in question. You've cited what

other people

have said about the reason behind the laws, but not what the people that passed the laws said -- and so, the cites mean nothing.

Your cites are meaningless, and without meningful support, your argument is lost.

And, as I mentioned before -- 48 of 50 states disenfranchise felons in some way shape or form - I defy you to show that all of these disenfranchisemnts are based on race.

Get back to me when you have something.

 

[shuamort]

You havent cited any primary source material regarding the intent of the laws in question. You've cited what have said about the reason behind the laws, but not what the people that passed the laws said -- and so, the cites mean nothing.

Your cites are meaningless, and without meningful support, your argument is lost.

And, as I mentioned before -- 48 of 50 states disenfranchise felons in some way shape or form - I defy you to show that all of these disenfranchisemnts are based on race.

Get back to me when you have something.

Have you ever been to a real debate? Let me let you in on a bit of info. A person posits a claim with substantive proof. If the person they're debating against doesn't proffer proof against the original claim, they don't get a point.

Point to me. None to you. Sorry. Come back when you have proof that either supports your claim or refutes yours. Your idiotic claim that it must be "firsthand" is neither a defense nor is it a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Have you ever been to a real debate? Let me let you in on a bit of info. A person posits a claim with substantive proof. If the person they're debating against doesn't proffer proof against the original claim, they don't get a point.

Somehow, you still aren't getting it.

Your proof isnt substantive.

You're quoting tertiary sources that quote secondary sources - that is, none of the sources directly support their assertion - they argue guilt by association rather than providing any direct evidence.

So, no points to you.

Now, give us something substantive, or give up.

 

[shuamort]

Somehow, you still aren't getting it.

Your proof isnt substantive.

You're quoting tertiary sources that quote secondary sources - that is, none of the sources directly support their assertion - they argue guilt by association rather than providing any direct evidence.

So, no points to you.

Now, give us something substantive, or give up.

Ahh, it's OBVIOUS you've never been in a real debate then. Gotcha. My point still stands, you lose. Sorry, maybe next time you'll know better.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ahh, it's OBVIOUS you've never been in a real debate then. Gotcha. My point still stands, you lose. Sorry, maybe next time you'll know better.

Thats what I thought.
You can't stand and deliver - and now you're running away.

 

[shuamort]

Thats what I thought.
You can't stand and deliver - and now you're running away.

Hmm, I believe I've already offered proof. Just because you think in your opinion that it's dismissable doesn't make it so. You've offered unfounded opinion about my cite without providing any proof that would refute it. You bitch and complain that it's not right and still don't have anything to back it up. You're being a dishonest debater over and over.

Baseline: If you can't provide proof to refute to my claim, your refutation holds no water.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm, I believe I've already offered proof.

No, you've offered tertiary sources that quote secondary sources. That's "proof" sufficient for a 6th grade research paper, but not for me.

You've offered unfounded opinion about my cite without providing any proof that would refute it.

"Unfounded opinion"?
First, there's no question that your cite is a tertiary source quoting a secondary source - your source's footnotes prove this.
Second, since it IS your cite, its up to YOU to show that it is credible - something you refuse to do.

You bitch and complain that it's not right and still don't have anything to back it up. You're being a dishonest debater over and over.

Its your claim, and they're your sources. You have show that they are valid and defend them from scrutiny; I don't have to disprove anything that hasn't been show to be valid.

Your source claims that another source says that someone else said something. That's scrutiny enough, in and of itself.

Baseline: If you can't provide proof to refute to my claim, your refutation holds no water.

All you're doing here is claiming X and arguing that if I cannot disprove X, X is valid. Try that on your dissertation.

Either show me primary sources that back your claim, or admit you cannot support your claim.

 

[shuamort]

No, you've offered tertiary sources that quote secondary sources. That's "proof" sufficient for a 6th grade research paper, but not for me.


"Unfounded opinion"?
First, there's no question that your cite is a tertiary source quoting a secondary source - your source's footnotes prove this.
Second, since it IS your cite, its up to YOU to show that it is credible - something you refuse to do.


Its your claim, and they're your sources. You have show that they are valid and defend them from scrutiny; I don't have to disprove anything that hasn't been show to be valid.

Your source claims that another source says that someone else said something. That's scrutiny enough, in and of itself.


All you're doing here is claiming X and arguing that if I cannot disprove X, X is valid. Try that on your dissertation.

Either show me primary sources that back your claim, or admit you cannot support your claim.

So in other words, you can't support a refutation. Sorry, you lose. Plain and simple.

 

[shuamort]

By the way, did you ever both to read the link of the complaint linked in my link? I am going to guess no as it would mean that you would have seen proof.

Page 15 of the .pdf is a good place to start.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So in other words, you can't support a refutation. Sorry,
you lose. Plain and simple.

:rofl

What it comes down to is this:

You are claiming that the legislative intent of a law is X, and you are using a (possibly/probably, biased) tertiary source that quotes an unknown, unillustrated and unverifiable secondary source to ‘prove’ this.

This level of evidence might be OK for a 6th grade research paper, but at any higher level of scrutiny, it doesn’t in any way ‘prove’ your claim. Until you show the secondary source and the primary sources said secondary source used to come to its conclusion(s), your citation is meaningless.

This level of scholarly verification is apparently beyond your level of education and/or experience, and if you stilldont understand why you havent proven anything, I guess I cannot help you.

Fact remains: until you supprt your position, I have no need to refute it.

 

[shuamort]

This level of scholarly verification is apparently beyond your level of education and/or experience, and if you stilldont understand why you havent proven anything, I guess I cannot help you.

Ahh, attacking people doesn't make your point any more true. :roll:

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ahh, attacking people doesn't make your point any more true. :roll:

Spoken by the person what apparently doesnt understand, and refuses to learn, why his citation doesnt mean anything.

In any event, specifying your ignorance isnt an attack.

 

[shuamort]

Spoken by the person what apparently doesnt understand, and refuses to learn, why his citation doesnt mean anything.

In any event, specifying your ignorance isnt an attack.

Hmm, I'm not the ignorant one here. By the way, did you read the pdf yet?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm, I'm not the ignorant one here.

Still waiting for that primary source material, champ.
When you have it, let me know.

 

[shuamort]

Still waiting for that primary source material, champ.
When you have it, let me know.

Interesting how you've ignored the pdf. Hmm, I think we may have a troll here, folks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting how you've ignored the pdf. Hmm, I think we may have a troll here, folks.

Interestng how you refuse to support your argument with meaningful citations.
Hmm, I think we have a troll here, folks.

 

[shuamort]

Interestng how you refuse to support your argument with meaningful citations.
Hmm, I think we have a troll here, folks.

Mod Note

Sorry, we do not allow trolls on this board. Since you were unable to debate honestly, you have been removed.

/Mod Note