Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....It matters if they vote 90% Prog. There is a big push for Felon voting and Hispanic voting in Florida. I wonder why? And I do agree with lesser Felons having non violent or drug sentences to get a chance at some point.
just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!
It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.
Harris joined Bernie and all others are in silent agreement.Now let's see if any of his main contenders in the Dem primary have the guts to attack his nutty position.
The amendment, of course, does not address the "right" of convicted felons to vote, so why bring it up?
I am really torn by this.
ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.
Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)
15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)
Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.
As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?
Once you pay your debt to society the convicted person should have certain rights restored.
Nice spin. First you didn’t know that most felons vote Democrat now now you’re off on a new stupid point.INteresting how your link doesn't say how many felons register at all? Are you asserting that they ALL do?Thanks for looking to me once again to educate you.You have linked evidence to back that up, right?Why are almost all felons Democrats?What can you say about a political party that is scared shitless whenever the number of people who vote goes upI have voiced this opinion in this forum before, but I again ask all to consider the import of three words: "Quality of voters."
Can you deny that the Democrat party is bound and determined to minimize the Quality of Voters - AS A MATTER OF POLICY.
Consider:
What can you say about a political party that constantly mines the population for people whose votes inevitably lower the Quality of the overall voter pool, thus making it better for charlatans, fakes, fraudsters, and kooks.
- 18-year-olds,
- college students (who have never worked, paid taxes, supported themselves, etc.),
- criminals,
- people who don't care enough to register to vote in advance of voting day,
- people who need a ride to the polls (and don't care enough to get there on their own),
- people too lazy to register to vote in the conventional way, and can be registered when applying for a drivers' license.
And look at the score of announced Democrat candidates for President. It all makes sense.
I’m always her for you.
Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats
It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....It matters if they vote 90% Prog. There is a big push for Felon voting and Hispanic voting in Florida. I wonder why? And I do agree with lesser Felons having non violent or drug sentences to get a chance at some point.
just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!
It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.
What part of “served their prescribed time” was unclear to you?Are you saying that convicted felons who’ve served their prescribed term of incarceration, should also be relieved of their tax burden? That’s a new angle I haven’t heard promoted before...SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....It matters if they vote 90% Prog. There is a big push for Felon voting and Hispanic voting in Florida. I wonder why? And I do agree with lesser Felons having non violent or drug sentences to get a chance at some point.
just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!
It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
People in prison pay taxes?
He should be pulled apart by four Clydesdales pulling in four different directions.They haven't executed the Boston Marathon Bomber yet? What's the hold up?
I am really torn by this.
ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.
Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)
15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)
Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.
As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?
Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?
Because that is what incarceration is. You also have a right to self defense, freedom of association and a host of other rights that are stripped from you when you are incarcerated.
I am really torn by this.
ALL Americans are entitled to vote. In fact, it's a public responsibility.
Where in the constitution does it give standards of who can vote?
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)
15th Amendment
Citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, color , or previous condition of servitude (1870)
17th Amendment
Allowed for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures (1913)
19th Amendment
Gave women the right to vote (1920)
23rd Amendment
Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College (1961)
24th Amendment
Abolished the poll tax (1964)
Voting Rights Act
Allows the national government to intervene in order to ensure that state/local laws do not prevent people from voting--this includes the removal of literacy tests (1965)
26th Amendment
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (1971)
Nowhere does it say anything about anybody convicted of a crime or serving a sentence in a penal facility or on parole or probation.
As much as I don't like it, if it isn't in the constitution, why do we take that right away?
All rights restored.Once you pay your debt to society the convicted person should have certain rights restored.
I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.
Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.
Yes, or no... Is it your contention that those with felony convictions do not, nor are obligated to; pay taxes?What part of “served their prescribed time” was unclear to you?Are you saying that convicted felons who’ve served their prescribed term of incarceration, should also be relieved of their tax burden? That’s a new angle I haven’t heard promoted before...SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....
just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!
It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
People in prison pay taxes?
Who are you quoting?
I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.
Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.
The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT wanting to stop people from voting that you think may vote the opposite of you and not really about the 'son of Sam', or the Boston Marathon Bomber....
just as I thought... it's about finding a way to disenfranchise a citizen that DIFFERS with you.... the typical, Republican playbook!
It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.
The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Technically correct. Except that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And have from the founding of this nation. Voting for all is a post founding addition, and privilege. So you’re right; but not in the way you thought. Such are the perils of “a la carte” loyalty to the constitution. It shows that your motives, and positions are unprincipled. Unprincipled people are seldom effectual...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
