Don't let every vote count

[rebAL]

Ms. Klinton wants to change the rules again & cheat to win.  S-450 & H.R. 939 are being sponsored by the demorats biggest libs. in order to add 5 million convicted felon voters at the ballot box.  I wonder how they would vote on disarming the citizenry in order to make everyone a defenseless potential victim?

[DWTim]

Uh... I believe that power belongs to the states. How is she planning on doing it at a federal level?

[Dusty Miller]

Uh...by attaching it to a spending bill, perhaps?

[DWTim]

Wow, stupid me, I didn't realize the federal government was a sovereign state.

EDIT: Welcome to the United State of America. Police state, this is.

[FWiedner]

Even a man who has in the past commited a crime has a right to have a say in his future.

If a "felon" is not actually serving time, he should be able to vote, and let those votes fall where they may.

Denying the vote to people who have paid their debt to society is tyranny.

 :?

[Casull]

FW, there's more to paying one's debt to society than just serving prison time.  Furthermore, I doubt there are many who actually serve their full prison sentence.  Part of paying one's debt is the loss of certain rights.  The right of freedom while in prison, and the right to vote once one gets out.  We don't let ex-felons purchase firearms either.  Its not tyranny to take away an ex-felon's right to vote, because that loss of voting rights is known prior to commiting the crime.  That loss is part of "paying one's debt to society".

[DWTim]

@ FWiedner -

Point taken, especially considering that some folks in DC would love to make me a felon for just about any old firearms-related violation. But what I see here is a slippery slope. It's coming at a time when it would be politically advantgeous to deposit a bunch of votes under the (D) column in a federal election. Soon there may be pressure to influence registration procedures at the state and local level.

[FWiedner]

Casull, I disagree with your status quo.

I believe that released "felons" should be able to vote.  I also believe that released "felons" should be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

It's popular in society to align with whatever position gets the "one-up" or to do whatever is necessary to gain a poisition of political advantage over those that one might disagree with or simply dislike.

That doesn't make the popular opinion necessarily right.   It frequently serves for the politically powerful to control those they cosider to be their inferiors.

If a "felon" can't handle the responsibilities of citizenship after having been imprisoned for any measure of time, then perhaps the better thing to do would be to keep that person in prison rather than to exact the petty and immoral revenge of depriving a free man of his rights.

That seems, to me, a crime unto itself.

[Casull]

FW, I couldn't disagree more with your position, and no amount of classist based incitement will cause me to.  The prohibition on firearm ownership and voting by felons (ex or otherwise) is not based upon the desire of some superior political class to illustrate the inferiority of a lower class (ie felons).  Rather, it is a measure taken to punish the violation of the contract that we, as members of a society, have with each other to not violate the rights of any of our members.  When one degenerate takes it upon him or herself to violate another's rights, and therefore the contract with our society, he or she can and should fully expect that some of the rights and privileges previously held may be limited or terminated.  Again, there are, and should be, consequences of committing a crime against another rather than the simple sentence of years in prison (restitution, community service, forced treatment or counseling, etc.).  I don't find anything arbitrary about this, because anyone can avoid these penalties by simply NOT stealing, raping, murdering, etc.

[FWiedner]

The prohibition on firearm ownership and voting by felons (ex or otherwise) is not based upon the desire of some superior political class to illustrate the inferiority of a lower class (ie felons).

Sorry, but I believe that depriving a man of his rights after having imprisoned him as punishment for comitting a crime is precisely that, i.e.,  "...the desire of some superior political class to illustrate the inferiority of a lower class (ie felons)".

I don't believe that the "social contract" gives any government or societal agent a blanket authority to torture and antagonize those persons who having commited crimes, have already been punished by imprisonment and privation.

That's the oppression of men who want to lord themselves over other men, pure and simple.

Do any of the articles of the Bill of Rights say "...except for felons"?

 :?

[EsoxLucius]

Do any of the articles of the Bill of Rights say "...except for felons"?

The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime."  It doesn't specify that the right has to be restored upon faithful execution of sentence.  Just participation in a crime is enough to allow the State to take away your right to vote, forever. So you are wrong.  The States have the right to deny the vote to felons, period.  May not make it right in your view, but the Constitution provides for it.

[FWiedner]

The 14th does indeed address the voting issue with regard to the law and voting rights.

What the master gives, he may also take away.

A reformed "felon" still has to pay taxes.  A reformed "felon" must still obey the law.

You are saying that this man must pay duty to the state, yet he deserves no opportunity for his concerns to be represented.

I just can't see where anything makes that right.

.

[EsoxLucius]

No, I'm saying some states have decided that those who commit felonies have given up their rights to certain things, voting among them.  A felony committed in some states will result in the loss of rights.  If one commits the crime, they should expect to pay the price.  And in some states that is the loss of certain rights, forever.  The opportunity to have ones concerns represented is lost in some states if one is convicted of a felony.  Too bad, too sad.  As a law abiding citizen I really don't have much sympathy for convicted felons.  I know if I'm convicted of a felony I will lose my right to vote and possess a firearm.  I understand that and accept that, and believe it is a good thing.  I guess apologists for convicted felons think differently.

[992]

And I suppose that it would be all right to let baby rapers teach kindergarden,too.
That may be the world that some of us see,but in the real world you know the results in getting caught,and if you go ahead with the crime,then you know the results.
If you only have to pay for a certain amout of time then every thing is restored,or wiped clean,then you can take advantage of everybody who didn't know you before your stay in the lockup!!
A whole new crop of victims,every time you get out??

I think not!

992
Just the way I see it.

[magooch]

The question I have is what makes Billary think that fellons would vote for her, or any other liberal puke.  Just because someone doesn't adhere to all the rules, doesn't mean they're crazy.

It matters little though, because once the rest of the country operates like this state, somehow they always magically find some lost votes to count if things don't go the way of the liberals.  And why worry so much about the gun rights of ex-fellons, the liberals want to deprive everyone from having gun rights.

[victorcharlie]

I tend to agree with FWeider on this one..........if there is a path for illegals to become citizens there ought to be a path for a felon to upgrade his status.

We all wonder why a man who gets out of jail repeats......maybe because it's so tough on him that he see's no other choice but to return to crime?  Oh yea....he can always run for the senate right?

If I didn't believe that this country has so many laws that we are all criminals just waiting to be arrested I might have a different view........This country is working very hard to make all of us criminals.

We have to many laws, and as a result we can't build enough prisons to hold all the criminals........

So then we have the nerve to pressure China on human rights when we incarsarate more people per capita than any country in the world......and still, on the other hand have more crime.

[EsoxLucius]

Currently, illegal immigration is not a felony.  So you are not comparing  equivalent offenses.  If or when the federal government or individual states make illegal immigration a felony then those who violate that law will be subject to the appropriate penalties, including loss of voting rights or firearms possession rights, if applicable in that state.  You can't "upgrade" your status as a convicted felon.  You commit a felony and are convicted, you serve your sentence and are subject to any other conditions the state feels fit to apply by law.  You will always be a convicted felon, with all that entails.  Don't like what that would mean to your existence?  Then think about what you are doing before you do something stupid.  I'm not amused that there are people that are actually apologists for convicted felons.

Please let us know what felonies in your state you think should be repealed?  You say we have too many laws that are just making us into criminals.  Which ones would you propose to get rid of?  Which laws have made you into a criminal?

What exactly is the connection between incarcerating people for committing crimes against society in the United States and China's human rights record?  I don't quite get a direct connection there.

[victorcharlie]

Most of my gripes are misdomenors........I can't burn a brush pile in my back yard without a burn permit....and then only on days the air quality index is within a certain limit........This is an EPA mandated law and I could receive up to a $25,000 fine for violating it.  Under what authority does a government agency operate anyway?  Doesn't a government agency assume powers of the executive, legislative and Judical branch of government making it a forth branch of government not set forth by the constitution?

I can't use gas, oil or those types of combustables to start the fire on the days big brother says I can burn or face the same penility...

Any repair, remodel, update, addition over $100 that I do to my property requires a building permit.  If it involves electrical or septic it requires a licensed contractor and an inspection.  What project have you done to your home that was under $100?  Did you get a permit?  Have an inspection?

There are several laws relating to handgun possession....a few that are felonies such as carring a handgun into a court house......or on an airliner.....bars.....etc......

Seems every time I talk with my sister she say's "there ought to be a law"........

Then there's the infalibality of the courts........one shot....if your convicted you can appeal, but rarely does a criminal conviction get over turned on appeal.......

Every day there are more and more restrictions placed on the people......

As for convicted Felons....yes your right.....they did the crime (some of them)......got the sentence...did the time.....and have the stigma forever........unless your a Kennedy.......or OJ....or Robert Blake.....or Micheal Jackson.........and the list goes on..........then you don't get convicted....don't do any time......

Then there's the matter of DNA and those that were wrongly imprisoned who were proven innocent after the technology was proven.......

Pretty screwed up to be an innocent man in prison I'd think........or, maybe men can't change?  Once a criminal always a criminal?

I suppose sir....your happy with all the laws, lawyers and the fact that we just keep passing more and more every day?  Happy that we build more and more prisons then outsource the prison contracts to a private corporations?

Maybe your happy with illegal wire taps and sneak and peak searches?

Sorry.....I'm for less government interference in my life.....fewer laws......some call it LIBERTY!

Sorry for the rant.......oh yea...then there's seat belt and helmet laws....open container laws.......etc...etc....etc.....

[EsoxLucius]

Heavens know I should not be the one giving civics lessons.  However, your government agency (EPA) is part of the executive branch.  Congress passed the environmental legislation and the President is charged with faithful execution of the law.  He does that through the his administrative agencies or Cabinet, appointing the heads of those departments.  In the case of the EPA, the President appoints the Administrator.  So, you are wrong.  Congress makes the laws, and the Executive branch through government agencies administer and enforce that law.

Have you ever considered the negative impact of your actions that might be part of the reason those environmental laws are written?  Just think what a mess we would have if everybody decided to burn their brush pile, during the worst temperature inversion of the year, and wanted to start the fire with old tires.  If there weren't negative impacts from people's actions that affect others or all of us there wouldn't be the impetus to create a law.

Although, much of building codes are designed to serve the interests of the building trades, I would still rather have some minimum standards imposed so I know if I buy a house it isn't poorly constructed.  I'm glad that communities impose standards on construction.  Their ability to do so is well established in common law.  It actually protects my property rights that they do.

I am not one who thinks there is enough or too little government intervention in our lives.  However, as long as people have to live together in a society they will create a mechanism for social order.  And because that social order is created by humans it is necessarily imperfect.  If the founding fathers did not intend for government to get out of control that is really of no consequence now.  We have to deal with what we got.  And what we got is a framework for the constant making of laws at the federal, state and local levels.  Those laws are in response to the collective demands of society.  Could there have been some controls placed on the proliferation of laws?  Well, I contend we have that, the ballot box.  All of the laws you cite and complain about are the result of some perceived harm or injustice agreed to by the people through their representatives.  So, your complaint it seems to me is with the whole deal, U.S. Constitution as well.  Because the U.S. and State Constitutions set up the framework for it all to happen, corrupted for sure, but you and I let it happen.

Are there reasonable restrictions on handguns?  Do you need to take a handgun into a courtroom?  Are there real dangers posed by letting anyone bring a handgun into a courtroom?  I suppose.  I don't like the idea of limiting the right to keep and bear arms, but even free speech is not absolute.  The right can be tempered by reasonable restrictions.  Again, it is society, not the individual, who is making those calls.  Not perfect by any means.  Can you currently see any feasible alternative?

Don't put the infallability moniker just on courts, there is enough to go around in all forms of government.  The courts are only meting out justice provided for by the laws the legislature creates and the executive prosecutes.  So, you have in essence the entire government involved, as well as the advocate for the defendant.  More than enough opportunity for human error from all involved.

So, the criminal justice system is flawed.  What did you expect?  Do you think anarchy is any better?  Remember, our country and the states were founded with a governmental framework that has resulted in all this.  If anybody is to fault it is the people who let it get "out of control", if that is what you think it is.

Why would I be happy with illegal wiretaps and sneak and peak searches, afterall they are illegal.  We have some of those laws you think we should get rid of that makes that activity illegal.  You're kinda conflicted here, I can see that.

[victorcharlie]

I'm certainly glad your happy with the way things are going.  Please try to understand that there are a bunch of us who arn't.

I can tell you, that having lived in a communist country..as an expatriot...for a rather extended perion of time..that things are very ordered there...

Seems to me.....we're going where they are........and Marxist theory is proving correct.

Lets see...the president appoints the chairman of the Federal Reserve who answers to know one....so his power is executive?  

I'm fully aware of who appoints agency heads........from my view, they are much the same as the fed chairman and assume powers not given them by the constitution.  So because the president appoints the head, and congress approved it.....then it must be constitutional......my mistake........

You are correct that our elected officals have sold us out......special intrest money and corporate profits are what gets and keeps our officials where they are........

You are correct again, that the ballot box is the one and only place we have any voice in the process........

I've voted Republican all my life, and I'm at the polls every time the doors open........

As neither party seems concerned with the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by the every day joe then I guess a third party is the only hope of turning this around.

I don't see myself as conflicted at all.....I see where this is headed and I want to stop it.

As far as my negative actions of burning brush piles the amount of pollution I put out is not measurable when compared to industry and especially the smoke belching, fire breathing electricity producing coal fired plants who have the blessing of those in authority.

I suggest that the they clean up there back yard and leave my back yard to me.

If there weren't negative impacts from people's actions that affect others or all of us there wouldn't be the impetus to create a law.

All of us.......do you not understand the socialist nature of this remark?

As far a my expectations......I expect those who want my vote to work for the things I believe are true, right, and just.

Civics lesson....your right again....you shouldn't be giving them.....

So.......you vote for socialism if you like......I'm voting for liberty and freedom......

[victorcharlie]

1 in every 136 people in the US now behind bars......

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/21/D8HODD7G0.html

Seems I'm not the only one alarmed about this.......

[EsoxLucius]

Gee, and crime rates continue to go down.  And a significant number of the cited inmate population increase is due to more people being held pretrial.  Don't do the crime and you won't have to do the time.  Pretty simple actually.

[WylieKy]

I'm with FWiedner and vicotrcharlie, however, I think violent rape, child abuse, and murder should be punishable by the death penalty, and most premeditated violent crime should be life sentances, so its really a nonissue.  DUI is a felony in many states.  Is it stupid, yes.  Should you go to jail, yes.  Should you lose the right to keep and bear arms or vote for you leaders for all time.  Hell no.

[EsoxLucius]

I'm certainly glad your happy with the way things are going. Please try to understand that there are a bunch of us who arn't.

I never said I was satisfied with the way things are.  I just said you and I are as much to blame as anyone.

I can tell you, that having lived in a communist country..as an expatriot...for a rather extended perion of time..that things are very ordered there...

Seems to me.....we're going where they are........and Marxist theory is proving correct.

Our system of government laid the framework for the passage of laws, we voted in the people who make those laws, we sit back idly by while the federal, state and local governments increase their power, all facilitated by the people.

Lets see...the president appoints the chairman of the Federal Reserve who answers to know one....so his power is executive?

I'm fully aware of who appoints agency heads........from my view, they are much the same as the fed chairman and assume powers not given them by the constitution. So because the president appoints the head, and congress approved it.....then it must be constitutional......my mistake........

What are you talking about?  Congress passed the law creating the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Act, 1913).  "The Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof..." "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...", Section 8, U.S. Constitution. The President appoints the Board of Governors and the Chairman according to that law.  Congress exercises oversight over the Federal Reserve System.  That's why the Chairman makes periodic trips to Capitol Hill.  http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm

As far as Federal Department Heads of the executive branch assuming powers not given to them by the Constitution goes, the Constitution provides for Congress to make laws and the President to execute them, and the various Federal departments and their heads are used to lawfully and Constitutionally execute the law.  Congress has the Constitutional power to make the laws and the President and his Department heads have the Constitutional power to execute those laws.  Sounds like you have a problem with our form of government which was laid out by the Constitution.  Hence, you actually have a problem with our Constitution.

You are correct that our elected officals have sold us out......special intrest money and corporate profits are what gets and keeps our officials where they are........

Where are you and I in relation to the sell out?  It seems to me we are as much at fault as the power-hungry politicians and greedy special interests/capitalists.

You are correct again, that the ballot box is the one and only place we have any voice in the process........

Several of the Founding Fathers alluded to the fact that the people also reserve the right to overthrow an unjust and overextended government.

I've voted Republican all my life, and I'm at the polls every time the doors open........

It's a good thing when citizens exercise their rights.

As neither party seems concerned with the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by the every day joe then I guess a third party is the only hope of turning this around.

It seems that there were a lot of well-meaning people over the more than two centuries of this country's history that resulted in what we have today.  A few more well-meaning people will make a difference?

I don't see myself as conflicted at all.....I see where this is headed and I want to stop it.

What do you propose to do?  The framework of our country allowed it and the people stood by and let it happen.

As far as my negative actions of burning brush piles the amount of pollution I put out is not measurable when compared to industry and especially the smoke belching, fire breathing electricity producing coal fired plants who have the blessing of those in authority. I suggest that the they clean up there back yard and leave my back yard to me.

Actually, this is not entirely true, particularly if we take the cummulative effect of others doing the same thing.  A single backyard burn barrel burning household waste pollutes the air more than a 200 ton a day waste-to-energy facility during an equal duration of burn.  That means it only takes about 25 burn barrels to pollute as much as the incinerator with its pollution control devices.  The same is true of people using wood burning stoves for heat.  The cummulative effect of wood burning stoves actually pollutes more than several coal-fired power plants.  So, you may think you have little impact, but science bears out that your actions when combined with like actions of other individuals can be very negative.  Hence, society (your government representatives) has identified a serious pollution problem with multiple individuals burning brush piles during temperature inversions and regulate that activity to mitigate its impacts.  Is that the role of government?  Perhaps.  The mechanism is well established for it to happen.  And not just you, the large point source polluters have spent billions to clean up their processes.  You do use electricity don't you?  You are the coal-fired power plants.

If there weren't negative impacts from people's actions that affect others or all of us there wouldn't be the impetus to create a law.

All of us.......do you not understand the socialist nature of this remark?

Why then did the Constitution provide for the making of laws to address negative impacts on people, business and institutions?  I understand your desire to be autonomous, but your burn pile affects others and government has done something about it.  No one has the right to harm others in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.  Sorry, the happiness you find in your burn pile has to be tempered if it is hurting others.

As far a my expectations......I expect those who want my vote to work for the things I believe are true, right, and just.

So, you see, you aren't in this alone.  It's just that others might have a different view of what is true, right and just.  What can you do about that?

Civics lesson....your right again....you shouldn't be giving them.....

You obviously could use one from somebody then.

So.......you vote for socialism if you like......I'm voting for liberty and freedom......

So, you are going to vote for overthrow of the existing governments and the Constitutions that support them?  I'm not a socialist, but I'm not an anarchist either.  How is your voting for liberty and freedom going to keep a system from passing laws that may infringe on individual activity to protect society from the ill effects of that activity, when that system, and the participants in it, allows it, facilitates it and provides for it to occur?

Here is a relevant, interesting discussion: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm

[Bush Master]

Oh no, not a another Freeper! I am with VC and FW on this one, if voting made any difference it would be illegal. I see there are still many that buy into the tired old left v right, repug v demon nonsense. You are not going to change anything by voting so give it a rest. A politician is a professional liar, they will promise anything to get elected and then whatever they feel is in THEIR best interest once in office.

As for blaming me, you can forget it. I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of others that I have absolutely no control over or say in. I used to vote and I used to write my congress critters, all to no avail. I finally learned my lesson and opted out of this totally corrupt system. It is morally wrong for any man to force his will on another, whether he does it himself or hires a government goon to do it for him.