Idiot Rand Paul wants to restore voting rights to FELONS!!!

[Avatar4321]

"Yeah, that Rand Paul finds himself on the same side as Eric Holder should be a tip off. But I always said narco-libertarians were just progressives with the fascist knocked off."

I doubt you will see the error you just made........ So it's prolly not worth pointing out.

Do you know how many people in this country today--were charged with a felony for getting caught smoking marijuana? You would actually deny these people the right to vote?

What about the kid that took off with someone else's car for a joy ride was charged with felony theft--then GROWS up and is a decent citizen--working and paying taxes with a family now. You would deny him the right to vote?

Think about it> Not every Felony--centers around murder or assault charges.

How about the career petty criminal who has 300+ arrests on his rap sheet? You want someone like that votiing?
Because the 18 year old who is not 35 can petition to have his rights restored. And it happens all the time. We dont need this legislation.

Which is precisely why you dont restore their rights until they've shown they can stay out of trouble for a while.

 

[Synthaholic]

If you wan't felons to ever fully reintergrate into society, then they should not be disinfranchised for life; there should be a criteria inplace wherein they can achieve voting status again. If they have paid in full for their crimes, and have succesfully acculturated to mainstream - then let them vote. :

Fine, but then why do you libbies oppose also giving them back their gun rights?. Being able to
defend yourself and family is far more important than voting. And gun rights are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed to all adults - unlike voting.

Who opposes that? Or are you just making ASSumptions again?

 

[Synthaholic]

Felons can get their gun rights back.

It's very tough. You have to get a pardon or in a few states appear before a panel and convince (pay a bribe) them to give you back your RKBA. The feds used to have a similar program until clinton defunded it.

Presidents do not have the power to defund anything - that's always the House.

You've been caught lying again, dope.

 

[bendog]

Gol darn it. We just disenfranchised the lazy and stupid and now this.

 

[Avatar4321]

we disenfranchised the lazy and stupid?

 

[dblack]

Yeah, that Rand Paul finds himself on the same side as Eric Holder should be a tip off. But I always said narco-libertarians were just progressives with the fascist knocked off.

'narco-libertarians' for the win!

 

[J.E.D]

Idiot Rand Paul wants to restore voting rights to FELONS!!!

For once I agree with Rand Paul on something.

Why should a person's voting rights be taken away for life because they have been convicted of a felony?

 

[Zander]

Where in the Constitution is the "right to vote" explicitly stated?

 

[dblack]

Idiot Rand Paul wants to restore voting rights to FELONS!!!

For once I agree with Rand Paul on something.

Why should a person's voting rights be taken away for life because they have been convicted of a felony?

It's a relic from back in the day when felony convictions were rare and represented serious crimes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm a moderate libertarian, but I definitely disagree with Rand on this one, at least at the federal level. Leave it up to the states.

I disagree. Voting in a federal election is a constitutional right. No state has the right to deprive a citizen of a constitutional right that is afforded to him/her by the federal government. Equal protection.

Now, all constitutional rights can be limited under proper circumstances. I like the idea of a person being able to clear their slate. And since I can imagine some circumstances in which a felony would not necessarily be the kind of mistake I favor seeing someone pay for the rest of their lives, I'd have to say I agree with Paul on this one. (mark your calendar)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Where in the Constitution is the "right to vote" explicitly stated?

In the 14th; 15th; 19th; 24th; and 26th Amendments

it is stated just as firmly and in the same style ("The right to .... shall not be abridged") as the second amendment spells out the right to bear arms and the first spells out the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition for the redress of grievances.

If you only count rights as "explicit rights" if the Constitution uses the wording "you have the right to ...." then the Constitution enumerates virtually no rights.

 

[Zander]

Where in the Constitution is the "right to vote" explicitly stated?

In the 14th; 15th; 19th; 24th; and 26th Amendments

it is stated just as firmly and in the same style ("The right to .... shall not be abridged") as the second amendment spells out the right to bear arms and the first spells out the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition for the redress of grievances.

If you only count rights as "explicit rights" if the Constitution uses the wording "you have the right to ...." then the Constitution enumerates virtually no rights.

I don't think it is a cut-and-dry issue.

Wikipedia says this:

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, clause (paragraph) 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[3] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
(For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm a moderate libertarian, but I definitely disagree with Rand on this one, at least at the federal level. Leave it up to the states.

I disagree. Voting in a federal election is a constitutional right. No state has the right to deprive a citizen of a constitutional right that is afforded to him/her by the federal government. Equal protection.

Now, all constitutional rights can be limited under proper circumstances. I like the idea of a person being able to clear their slate. And since I can imagine some circumstances in which a felony would not necessarily be the kind of mistake I favor seeing someone pay for the rest of their lives, I'd have to say I agree with Paul on this one. (mark your calendar)

It's already the case that a felon can petition to have his voting rights restored. And it does happen. Why do we need a statute to make it automatic? I mean, other than giving the Dems a new constituency.

 

[Londoner]

ShootSpeeders

"Fine, but then why do you libbies oppose also giving them back their gun rights?"

I don't oppose giving them their gun rights back. Let's make a trade. The gun will be handed to them right after they vote, provided they vote correctly. And I don't want anyone at the polls verifying citizenship or cracking down on felons who vote multiple times on the same day. In rare cases where the felon commits a felony at a voting facility - and said felon is an illegal alien - than he only gets to vote once.

 

[Synthaholic]

Voting. I got first offenders act and the STATE will allow me to own a gun but like ya said the ATF no longer has funds to deal with people asking for their right to own a gun back. I ignore them anyways...2nd amendment is clear on that....Once I hit the lottery I will get a good lawyer and get that right back in the legal definition according to the government.

Who cut ATF funding? Republicans. Fact.

They've been attacking ATF ever since Waco.

 

[Synthaholic]

If a felon has served their time, they should be allowed to earn their right to vote back. However, in the case of sex offenders and identity thieves, they should be banned from voting for life. Some felons will be repeat offenders, others will do what they can to lead a clean life, and banning them from voting will be a discouragement they don't need.

I would rather see felons who served their time allowed to vote than freeloading welfare trash that refuses to work and be a productive member to society. If one refuses to work and is on welfare, they should have to surrender their voting rights.

Why?

 

[The Rabbi]

Voting. I got first offenders act and the STATE will allow me to own a gun but like ya said the ATF no longer has funds to deal with people asking for their right to own a gun back. I ignore them anyways...2nd amendment is clear on that....Once I hit the lottery I will get a good lawyer and get that right back in the legal definition according to the government.

Who cut ATF funding? Republicans. Fact.

They've been attacking ATF ever since Waco.

Proof? No. ATF has more funding now than ever.
ATF Fact Sheet - U.S. Bomb Data Center | ATF

Looks like you've been pwned again, sonny.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm a moderate libertarian, but I definitely disagree with Rand on this one, at least at the federal level. Leave it up to the states.

How can you be moderate pro-freedom?

I take it you are pro-choice, then.

 

[Synthaholic]

Voting. I got first offenders act and the STATE will allow me to own a gun but like ya said the ATF no longer has funds to deal with people asking for their right to own a gun back. I ignore them anyways...2nd amendment is clear on that....Once I hit the lottery I will get a good lawyer and get that right back in the legal definition according to the government.

Who cut ATF funding? Republicans. Fact.

They've been attacking ATF ever since Waco.

Proof? No. ATF has more funding now than ever.
ATF Fact Sheet - U.S. Bomb Data Center | ATF

Looks like you've been pwned again, sonny.

Sorry, fool. Your own link shows less employees, less investigators, less in other positions.

ATF poorly armed with funding as duties grow

The ATF, charged with keeping track of the nation's 300 million guns, has an annual budget of $1 billion, half that of the Drug Enforcement Administration and a pittance compared with the $8 billion showered on the FBI. In addition to firearms, the bureau investigates bombings, regulates the explosives industry and tries to halt illegal trafficking of alcohol and cigarettes.

As enforcement responsibilities grow and its funding stays static - the bureau's roster of agents has grown by just 38 in the past 12 years, to 2,388 - some jobs slip through the cracks.

The agency is incapable of inspecting a majority of the nation's 137,000 gun dealers and other licensees within a mandated five-year time frame, according to a Justice Department inspector general's report in April.

One result: From 2004 to 2011, the number of firearms considered lost or stolen increased 18 percent, to 174,679. Many of those are believed to have fallen into the hands of criminals.

When investigators identify gun dealers guilty of serious violations, the bureau is slow to revoke licenses. The inspector general's report said a third of such cases from 2005 through 2010 took more than a year. In the seven years leading up to 2011, the number of revocations dropped 43 percent.

"Just look at the numbers," said Marvin Richardson, deputy assistant director for enforcement programs and services for the agency. "They speak for themselves."


Government Agency Charged With Enforcing Gun Laws Has No Permanent Director, Tiny Staff

Part of the problem is that Congress, in its wisdom, removed ATF from the Treasury Department and turned it into a stand-alone agency in 2006, adding the agency's director to the list of posts that require Senate confirmation. Thanks to the NRA's lobbying power, the Senate has never confirmed anyone for the job since then, leaving the agency rudderless. The ATF's current acting director is working out of the US Attorney's office in Minnesota.

Lack of stable leadership isn't the ATF's only problem. The bureau employs fewer people than it did almost 40 years ago, with fewer than 2,500 people on hand to regulate the 310 million guns and 60,000 gun dealers in the US. The Post reports that the ATF is so shorthanded that gun dealers can expect an ATF inspection about once every eight years.


Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF

The problems are obvious. The agency that Obama said "works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals" has the same of number of agents as the Phoenix Police Department. Its budget has barely budged in decades (as the Department of Homeland Security has grown flush with post-9/11 funding). It has fewer investigators than it did in 1973. And its acting (and part-time) director, B. Todd Jones, commutes to work from Minneapolis, where he works full-time as a US attorney. It hasn't had a permanent director for six years. The NRA blocked Obama's earlier appointee, Andrew Traver, in part because Traver had once attended a meeting of police chiefs that focused on gun control. At the unveiling of his gun violence prevention package, Obama announced he would seek to make Jones the permanent (and presumably fulltime) chief of the ATF.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Fine, but then why do you libbies oppose also giving them back their gun rights?. Being able to
defend yourself and family is far more important than voting. And gun rights are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed to all adults - unlike voting.

Who opposes that? Or are you just making ASSumptions again?

All liberals oppose it. Liberals oppose freedom and the only reason you want felons voting is cuz you know they'll vote dem, the welfare party.