# Do you support felons voting?



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote? 

I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Nope. 
If they're dumb enough to commit and get caught at a felony, their vote isn't going to do anything positive for society.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

No! It's part of their penalty for committing the crime.

What's next allowing child sex offenders to live next to a school??


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> 
> I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


I do after their entire debt is paid to society. That includes any and all probation. But, to be clear, I also think the probation periods for all crimes should be tripled and the money making classes required stopped. The for profit probation system is broken. But that is for another thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

po boy said:


> No! It's part of their penalty for committing the crime.


It's seldom part of the sentence for the crimes committed.
It's actually a "life sentence" that's not a part of the statutes for each offense.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t think any more rights should be stripped from anyone than required for safety of the general populace. 

For those that would take the right to vote away a felon what other rights do you feel like you should strip from them?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes......to both, although the OP only asked about voting.


It's a great 'law and order'/'tough on crime' topic but if you examine it legally and constitutionally the only arguments you can come up with are based on emotions.
Sure, you can pull up crime statistics and infer attitudes and behaviors from that, but in reality that's only speculation.
OTOH, even though there isn't a "right to vote" in the Constitution, there is in all states and there IS the 14th amendment. If it wasn't meant to be, none of those words would have been written down.

So the crux of the argument is simply this, and it's already been ruled by the SCOTUS several times.........
"Can you ever legally and Constitutionally take away a citizen's guaranteed rights?"
If so, under what conditions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk



> *Loss of United States citizenship[edit]*
> The Constitution does not specifically deal with loss of citizenship. An amendment proposed by Congress in 1810—the Titles of Nobility Amendment—would, if ratified, have provided that any citizen who accepted any "present, pension, office or emolument" from a foreign country, without the consent of Congress, would "cease to be a citizen of the United States"; however, this amendment was never ratified by a sufficient number of state legislatures and, as a result, never became a part of the Constitution.[16]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think any more rights should be stripped from anyone than required for safety of the general populace.
> 
> For those that would take the right to vote away a felon what other rights do you feel like you should strip from them?


The right to roam around among us


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I find it funny that almost everyone here could have Been a felon and yet they think they should retain all rights while those that were caught should be stripped of their rights.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> The right to roam around among us


 That is the one right that some felons should lose so I will agree.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it funny that almost everyone here could have Been a felon and yet they think they should retain all rights while those that were caught should be stripped of their rights.


We do have too many laws


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

For sure
There was a point where the felony of mob action could be committed in my state by being with some one that committed a crime. 
Is there anyone here that never did that ?
I think at some point my state realized that and rather than drop the felony back to a misdemeanor that changed it to have levels 
I think now felony mob action require a underlying felony. 

But I know of at least one man convicted of killing a police officer that he was never within ten miles of. 
So who knows what crimes they have committed?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

If a person has served their time, I say they return to the same status as before....otherwise, they are condemned to a life sentence of sorts. As for voting, it amounts to making a mountain out of a molehill....those that would probably bother to vote wouldn't make a lick of difference anyway.

I DO think an employer should have the right to ask in consideration of employment, but that is an issue of the rights of the employer more than the felon.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Since there is no "right to vote" guaranteed by our constitution, I have no problem denying the priveledge to anyone. Felons would be high on my list of people in the never vote category.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

I don't think felons have "paid their debt to society". They have just been warehoused for a couple of years to keep them out of society and to prevent them from committing more crimes for awhile.

A person has to work darn hard to actually end up in prison for a felony. With plea bargaining many felonies get downgraded to some sort of misdemeanor. The law breaker has to really brass off the judge to end up in prison for years. The felon s a person who uses really bad judgement and consistently uses really bad judgement. I can't think of any good reason to let them have a say in the writing of new laws.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I think some people think the Constitution is carved in rock, never to be changed, instead of a changing growing document with 27 amendments.

It's not, but that's another topic.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I forgot to add another point in logic vs. emotion.

"Taxation without representation" was the battle cry in this country's Revolutionary War.
You won't find that specifically mentioned in the Constitution although Article I is full of relevant examples.

So.......here's the 6 trillion dollar question.

Do those that think felons shouldn't have the right to vote, also think the rest of the voting public should have the right to spend the felons' tax money if they are out of prison and gainfully employed?

Isn't that like asking the guy with no car to pay gasoline taxes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oregon woodsmok said:


> A person has to work darn hard to actually end up in prison for a felony.


Who said anything about ending up in prison?
There are lots of "felons" who never see prison.
There are plenty of crimes that are "felonies" that don't take lots of effort to commit.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

oregon woodsmok said:


> A person has to work darn hard to actually end up in prison for a felony. With plea bargaining many felonies get downgraded to some sort of misdemeanor. The law breaker has to really brass off the judge to end up in prison for years. The felon s a person who uses really bad judgement and consistently uses really bad judgement. I can't think of any good reason to let them have a say in the writing of new laws.


You have that so wrong. 
I know of felons that didn’t work at it at all. 
I think it depends highly on the jurisdiction. 

Look at the truck driver out in Colorado facing four felonies for making a choice that killed but would have normally worked out just fine
Bad luck bad choice.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think some people think the Constitution is carved in rock, never to be changed, instead of a changing growing document with 27 amendments.
> 
> It's not, but that's another topic.


I'm waiting for the amendment that guarantees anyone a right to vote. So far I've only seen amendments that give some particular reasons a voter cannot be denied the priveledge. For instance you cannot be denied the vote for being a woman, or a particular race. Doesn't mean you can't be denied for other reasons, like mentally ill, being a felon, being underage, being a noncitizen...... The list goes on and on, it's obvious to most anyone that it's not a guaranteed right, nor ever has been. 

As to the constitution being "carved in stone".... True, it's written on parchment. It was accepted as the supreme law of the land as written. It has provisions for change as needed. That's in article five. There is no other provision named for the purpose of growth, so any changes need to be done through amendments...., not whining and crying, legislating from the bench, manipulation of the supreme courts or simply ignoring it. For all intents and purpose.... Yes, carve it in granite.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

It's a tough call, but since many, if not most, felonies involve one person abusing the civil rights of another person, requiring that the person committing the felony give up their right to vote seems fair to me. I think that during their sentence and probation, they definitely should lose their right to vote.

I wouldn't be opposed to a federal law that defined how a felon, after fulfilling their sentence, could earn back their right to vote. Unfortunately interest groups would identify these felons and provide coaching for them to win back their voting right and also coaching them on who to vote for.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Since there is no "right to vote" guaranteed by our constitution, I have no problem denying the priveledge to anyone. Felons would be high on my list of people in the never vote category.


 Yes there is haven’t you ever read it ?
Reread the last right in the bill of right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> I think some people think *the Constitution is carved in rock*, never to be changed, instead of a changing growing document with 27 amendments.
> 
> It's not, but that's another topic.


No one said it was.
The right to self defense predates the Constitution though, and can't be taken away.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes there is haven’t you ever read it ?
> Reread the last right in the bill of right.


You interpretation of the tenth amendment is Intersting to say the least. I'd love to hear more about it, along with your interpretation of the ninth. Voting has never been a "right" to be enumerated or assumed. It is a priveledge, as proven by history and law.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm waiting for the amendment that guarantees anyone a right to vote. So far I've only seen amendments that give some particular reasons a voter cannot be denied the priveledge. For instance you cannot be denied the vote for being a woman, or a particular race. Doesn't mean you can't be denied for other reasons, like mentally ill, being a felon, being underage, being a noncitizen...... The list goes on and on, it's obvious to most anyone that it's not a guaranteed right, nor ever has been.
> 
> As to the constitution being "carved in stone".... True, it's written on parchment. It was accepted as the supreme law of the land as written. It has provisions for change as needed. That's in article five. There is no other provision named for the purpose of growth, so any changes need to be done through amendments...., not whining and crying, legislating from the bench, manipulation of the supreme courts or simply ignoring it. For all intents and purpose.... Yes, carve it in granite.


You should stop voting until we get this cleared up.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SRSLADE said:


> You should stop voting until we get this cleared up.


Why? I meet the current requirements to excericize the priveledge, although I admit I wouldn't if I had my way!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> It's a tough call, but since many, if not most, felonies involve one person abusing the civil rights of another person, requiring that the person committing the felony give up their right to vote seems fair to me. I think that during their sentence and probation, they definitely should lose their right to vote.
> 
> I wouldn't be opposed to a federal law that defined how a felon, after fulfilling their sentence, could earn back their right to vote. Unfortunately interest groups would identify these felons and provide coaching for them to win back their voting right and also coaching them on who to vote for.


I don't think that felons, or anyone under sentencing, in confinement, or on parole/probation should be eligible to vote. Only those that have met their sentences completely.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You interpretation of the tenth amendment is Intersting to say the least. I'd love to hear more about it, along with your interpretation of the ninth. Voting has never been a "right" to be enumerated or assumed. It is a priveledge, as proven by history and law.


 What interpretation it is pretty clear .


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

_Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. 
By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence_

_"All men are created equal...and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."_

All American citizens are my equal. If a felon cannot be restored their rights then they haven't paid their debt so keep him/her in the Gefangnis until they do.
Voting is a privilege, self defense is a right.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You interpretation of the tenth amendment is Intersting to say the least. I'd love to hear more about it, along with your interpretation of the ninth. Voting has never been a "right" to be enumerated or assumed. It is a priveledge, as proven by history and law.


Article I, section 2.

Enumerated? Not until later.
Assumed? Obviously. 
How else do all those elected officials defined in the document get "elected"?



> *Section 2: House of Representatives[edit]*
> *Clause 1: Composition and election of Members[edit]*
> The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
> 
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> What interpretation it is pretty clear .


Yes it is, which is why I question your position. Which part of the tenth amendment do you think applies to voting?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> I forgot to add another point in logic vs. emotion.
> 
> "Taxation without representation" was the battle cry in this country's Revolutionary War.
> You won't find that specifically mentioned in the Constitution although Article I is full of relevant examples.
> ...


Maybe after he pays back for the room and board, and all associated cost of his misdeeds, and some years have past post parole, and incarceration, maybe, maybe.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Article I, section 2.
> 
> Enumerated? Not until later.
> Assumed? Obviously.
> How else do all those elected officials defined in the document get "elected"?


Later? When was that? I'm not seeing it in any of the amendments....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Enumerated? Not until later.
> Assumed? Obviously.
> How else do all those elected officials defined in the document get "elected"?


The clause you quoted doesn't say everyone has a "right" to vote:



> At the time of its creation, the Constitution did not explicitly give citizens an inherent right to vote.[15] However, by stipulating that *those qualified* to vote in elections for the largest chamber of a state's legislature could vote in Congressional (House of Representatives) elections the Framers expressed a rather explicit intent that the House was to be directly elected


.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Maybe after he pays back for the room and board, and all associated cost of his misdeeds, and some years have past post parole, and incarceration, maybe, maybe.


That's a fair point.
It would involve some deft accounting to figure an exact amount on a case by case basis, but I'm sure someone could do it.
Just for general public info, many sentences already come with fines, court cost and probation fees, that's all required in order to have your sentence "completed".
It's also common now to have daily fees assessed for incarceration, as well, as many others for phone calls, visits, food and clothing.
I think the real experience would be an eye opener for a lot of people.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Later? When was that? I'm not seeing it in any of the amendments....


You already quoted most of them, there are 5.
But the real clincher is the one I asked about the assumption of a "right to vote".........


> How else do all those elected officials defined in the document get "elected"?


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think that felons, or anyone under sentencing, in confinement, or on parole/probation should be eligible to vote. Only those that have met their sentences completely.


Also my opinion.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Maybe some should read Bush v Gore. The right to vote in a Federal election has already been decided by SCOTUS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Maybe some should read Bush v Gore.


Show us the relevant passages


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes it is, which is why I question your position. Which part of the tenth amendment do you think applies to voting?


 OK to interpret it for you the ninth amendment means just because we didn’t talk about it here doesn’t mean it’s not a right .
The 10th means everything else here that wasn’t listed as a right is still retained by the people. 

Pretty simple.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> OK to interpret it for you the ninth amendment means just because we didn’t talk about it here doesn’t mean it’s not a right .
> The 10th means everything else here that wasn’t listed as a right is still retained by the people.
> 
> Pretty simple.





nchobbyfarm said:


> Maybe some should read Bush v Gore. The right to vote in a Federal election has already been decided by SCOTUS.


There ya go, spoiling all the fun!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it funny that almost everyone here could have Been a felon and yet they think they should retain all rights while those that were caught should be stripped of their rights.


From where I gander, I thought most Americans were felons. I only say this because you have the highest incarceration rates in the world. I suppose you have repeat offenders, but if 2.3 million of you are in jail, every year, it won't take long to have a sizable percentage who have visited the big house. 
We obviously do not strip a citizen of their right to vote. However unseemly it may seem to law and order types, I have no issue with it. What bad a person does has no bearing on their right to vote, none. If you strip a person of their right to vote, it becomes a life long sentence. Plus, I thought the idea was to rehabilitate a person. You take away their opportunity to become involved in arguably, the foundation of a democracy, I have to think it doesn't help them rehabilitate.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show us the relevant passages


All of it is relevant.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think that felons, or anyone under sentencing, in confinement, or on parole/probation should be eligible to vote. Only those that have met their sentences completely.


I think a guy named Bernie said that felons should be able to vote from prison.
I think that when their parole is over they should be able to vote and own firearms. They would, of course be required to pass a background check to own a firearm.

In a real world sense, ex-felons register to vote and no one is doing a background check. So, felons do vote.

While I'd like to make more of an example of a felon, to deter criminal activities, a loss of the right to vote would have little effect. Personally, I'm more concerned about dead people voting.

I don't like the idea of uncaptured invaders voting, either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show us the relevant passages


They are in here......
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/

........but first, define what you would accept as "relevant" otherwise it's a waste of time to copy and paste.
IOW, do you want to see the SCOTUS words that "voting is a federal right that can never be denied" or the Constitutional citation by the Court where they affirmed that the right had been Constitutionally given to the voters by each state?


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> 
> I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


. Well, I never thought I would say this Pixie, but I agree with you.  If a person has served their time and made it through their parole and any other requirements to pay their debt, I think they should have their rights restored.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

If a person has fulfilled the terms of their sentence and has been released from parole and/or incarceration then I believe they should be allowed to vote. 

Don't get me started on all those "undocumented" people that are not permitted to vote but do it anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> but first, define what you would accept as "relevant" otherwise it's a waste of time to copy and paste.


Relevant meaning it *says* what was claimed.
Not some vague interpretation.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> .....


No.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> All of it is relevant.


Most of it deals with how votes are counted and recounted, not if voting itself is a "right".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> They would, of course be required to pass a background check to own a firearm.


If their rights were restored they would pass.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

An avenue to restore the rights of a felon already exists. In most states a felon can petition the governor of the state in which the crime occurred to pardon him and restore his rights.

I think this should be done on a case by case basis and take into account the seriousness of the crime and the record of the perpetrator after they finished serving their sentence. I had a neighbor that did something stupid when he was 18 and got a felony conviction. He was 60 years old and had not voted since then nor owned a gun. He was a successful businessman with a wife and kids. His rights should have been restored.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> You already quoted most of them, there are 5.
> But the real clincher is the one I asked about the assumption of a "right to vote".........


There has never in the history of the USA been any "right to vote" either legislated or assumed. Your presumption of such is erroneous in my estimation. Non citizens do not have that right, convicted felons do not, 12 year olds do not, along with numerous others. Voting has restrictions, therefore it is a privilege not a right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> OK to interpret it for you the ninth amendment means just because we didn’t talk about it here doesn’t mean it’s not a right .
> The 10th means everything else here that wasn’t listed as a right is still retained by the people.
> 
> Pretty simple.


Your accurate on the ninth... Up to a point, just because it wasn't discussed there doesn't make it a right either. Your way off base with your thinking on the tenth as well. It say powers not specifically granted to the Feds, by the constitution are retained by the states, and to the people. Rights are not the same as powers. The tenth is obviously there for one purpose and only that purpose.... To limit the powers of the Feds to those powers specifically stated within the constitution. I will add that it is also probably the most trampled on of any part of the constitution. 2/3 of our annual federal budget goes out to a wide range of social programs the Feds have no legal authority to spend one thin dime on!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Maybe some should read Bush v Gore. The right to vote in a Federal election has already been decided by SCOTUS.


i just wasted a fair amount of time reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right to vote, who can or cannot be denied such priveledge or what any state wants to use as qualifiers to vote. If anything it points out that many can be denied the vote.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

XIX the right to vote is written clearly.


----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

I suggest that before one responds to this question you take the time to examine what being a Felon means. And reflect on how easily it can happen to you.


In my state, and alot of others, a hot check $200.00, speeding 20 mph over the limit even if it's not posted, and there's many many others that fall in such asinine levels. 

How many folks carry felonies for simple marijuana possession only?
I don't use it, but I could care less if you do in the privacy of your own home. And obviously most Americans agree as its being legalized systematically. 

I read where it's been suggested that being in debt arrerage is a felonious act.
The inane laws that result in felonies is a long list.....which we have quietly allowed to slip past our scrutiny...

Our federal government, and state governments, have systematically added things to the felony list. Look it up.
Remember 
Benjamin Franklin said to control the people first they must disarm the people. 
Its insane to levy lifetime punishment of any kind on folks for small offenses..where there is NO VISIBLE VICTIM people can and do reform. 

Folks make Bone head decisions, get caught up in lifestyles or relationships which lead them down the wrong roads...

Being in construction I've seen and known hundreds of felons.....some are boneheaded and learn slowly, but many others were decent fellas.....just trying to feed a family. 

In my opinion unless it's a major act of violence, or a sex young child offence, something with a clear victim it should not carry a lifetime debilitating attachment. 
We need folks who mess up to rehabilitate, and rejoin society as productive members.
Holding them back and labeling them so its difficult to get a job, out side of being a congressman, is not morally humane, nor ethical. 

Yes they should vote, own firearms, get their names back, and be given a chance to survive and stand on their own feet. It's the right thing to do. 

Remember you yourself are a half a step away from being a felon.....


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i just wasted a fair amount of time reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right to vote, who can or cannot be denied such priveledge or what any state wants to use as qualifiers to vote. If anything it points out that many can be denied the vote.


I didn't? I thought I remembered a sentence about an individual not having a constitutional right to vote for electors. Therefore, no right to vote in a Federal Presidential election. 

But I have been wrong before.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There has never in the history of the USA been any "right to vote" either legislated or assumed. Your presumption of such is erroneous in my estimation. Non citizens do not have that right, convicted felons do not, 12 year olds do not, along with numerous others. Voting has restrictions, therefore it is a privilege not a right.


So, no answer to my question,........."How do YOU "assume" all those politicians get their jobs?"
If you go with voting as a "privilege" then you make the perfect argument for those who say we have a "privileged class" in this country and everything else that makes this country the envy of the world, is a lie........such as "all men are created equal".

If you still don't want to answer the question, I'll understand. 
Denial can be very difficult to overcome.
But I never said a word about 12 year olds or illegal immigrants and neither did SCOTUS.
My only focus was and is, on natural born citizens who are adults.
So, I suppose you can show ME where citizenship CAN be stripped of a natural born adult American, right?
There IS one place it is written under one condition, so it should be easy to spot.
Hint:.........look for the word treason.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i just wasted a fair amount of time reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right to vote, who can or cannot be denied such priveledge or what any state wants to use as qualifiers to vote. If anything it points out that many can be denied the vote.


I'll give you the same reply as BFF.
There are several paragraphs where the specifics of voting rights are discussed regarding federal and state laws with the 14th amendment cited in their decision.
I can pull them out of the link and paste them for you, but I'll not waste the time if you won't believe what the SCOTUS wrote.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The "Good People" who have lived anonymously in the right areas just don't get it.
We had a states attorney once declare everyone in my town was a "felon" and that he would have us all convicted by the end of his term!!

What do you think its like to live in a place like that when a felony can be committed by sitting in a speeding car?
When the sheriffs office comes to talk with a girl a week after her BFs 18th birthday?
When a underage girl stopped for speeding is told she will be taken away from her family placed in foster care and lose any scholarships if she wont swear a statement to someone elses crime.?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Relevant meaning it *says* what was claimed.
> Not some vague interpretation.


What is it that you say was "claimed"?
Be specific, and no, I'm not playing the "Scroll back" game.
My time is too valuable for games.

If the claim is "There is a Federal right to vote in Presidential elections granted by state legislatures" then say it in writing and I'll show you.
But if you refuse to type your specific request, then I refuse to copy and paste it for you.
Pretty simple.

You and YH have a difficult question to ask yourselves.
"How do people get elected in a country where ALL have equal rights, if there is no 'right to vote' "?

BTW, the answer to that question was written for you in Bush v. Gore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> What is it that you say was "claimed"?
> Be specific, and no, I'm not playing the "Scroll back" game.
> My time is too valuable for games.


If you don't have time to read what was posted, then why did you waste so much time rambling?



farmrbrown said:


> But if you refuse to type your specific request, then *I refuse to copy and paste it for you.*
> Pretty simple.


I never asked you to do anything at all.
(Aside from honestly answer one question that you always dance around).

Pretty simple.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

sure, why not ? the people they are voting for are just as guilty as the felon was. at least he paid his debt..


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> 
> I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


I agree, for several reasons:

First, if a person has paid his or her assigned debt, that person should be square with society.

Second, it is e extremely dangerous to an ostensibly free society to have a mechanism for establishing a de facto second-class citizenship.

Third, when the mechanism exists to establish a second-class citizenship, you can rest assured that politicians will exploit it to disenfranchise people they deem inconvenient to have participating in the political process.

Fourth, in case an argument of principle is inadequate to persuade you, you should bear in mind that as more and more behavior is felonized, you personally are at risk of being disenfranchised. A century ago in this country if you followed the Ten Commandments and paid your taxes, you would never have to even think about an unpleasant encounter with the government. Today I wonder how many laws we all break every day without even realizing it. You only have to get caught once.

* Let me specify that I do not support allowing incarcerated inmates vote.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

How many felons want to/would actually vote?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> How many felons want to/would actually vote?


Lots of them vote now, since it's dependent on state laws.
Don't assume "felons" has any real definition aside from "one who broke certain laws".

Back in the 60's you could be convicted of a "felony" just for having a small amount of marijuana.
Those same people are serving a "life sentence" in respect to some of their rights.

Not all "felons" are psychopathic killers or high level drug dealers.

https://edfolsomlaw.com/2013/01/illegal-possession-of-your-own-prescription-drugs/


> Don’t scoff at the possibility that a person could be charged for carrying his or her own prescription medications loose in a pocket. There is at least one prosecutorial district in Maine where at least one assistant district attorney will not hesitate to bring a charge against a person for that conduct. In September of 2012, a story appeared in the Bangor Daily News about a man who was prosecuted for possessing a single oxycodone pill, in his home, outside the pill’s original container. Although the defendant had a prescription for the medication, the expiration date had passed. The Superior Court Justice hearing the case questioned whether a person could be guilty of possessing a drug that was prescribed to him. The Bangor Daily News quoted the assistant district attorney handling the case as claiming he’d prosecuted “hundreds” of similar cases. This assistant district attorney operates on the theory that if your prescription was expired on the date of the alleged conduct, you no longer “possessed a valid prescription” at that time and therefore cannot avail yourself of the affirmative defense. It is not clear whether: (a) the passage of the expiration date printed on a prescription pill bottle renders the prescription no longer “valid” within the meaning of the controlling statute; or (b) whether the person “possessed a valid prescription” for the drug, for affirmative defense purposes, as long the drug at issue was legitimately prescribed for that person in the first place. What is clear is, at least in this one prosecutorial district, you could find yourself on the other side of the “v.” from “State of Maine” if you aren’t careful.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

NO. 

We have enough damned parasites voting these days...no need to include convicted felons. Sorry, but there needs to be consequences for actions. Actually, there should be MORE consequences..not less.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well Alder just how much more should we do to a person who accompanied a speeder or broke up with a girlfriend. ?
Are you really so perfect you have never committed a felony ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SRSLADE said:


> XIX the right to vote is written clearly.


"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 sex." 

This tells me that one sex had been denied the "right to vote" due to their sex. I'm thinking it was women. That particular barrier has now been removed but does not grant any one a right to vote. There are numerous other criteria that must be met.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> So, no answer to my question,........."How do YOU "assume" all those politicians get their jobs?"
> If you go with voting as a "privilege" then you make the perfect argument for those who say we have a "privileged class" in this country and everything else that makes this country the envy of the world, is a lie........such as "all men are created equal".
> 
> If you still don't want to answer the question, I'll understand.
> ...


Most politicians get their jobs by winning votes. But not everyone is granted that priveledge. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, everyone has the right to due process.... Many other rights are guaranteed but voting is not nor never has been one of them. We must be qualified to excericize that priveledge.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Well Alder just how much more should we do to a person who accompanied a speeder or broke up with a girlfriend. ?
> Are you really so perfect you have never committed a felony ?


Immaterial.
I said "convicted".


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

I would support felons right to vote if we had a proper system of capital punishment. One of the big reasons we had such a bump in the renaissance and made it to and through the industrial revolution was our culling of unwanted behavior from the gene pool. Western society had 2 advantages:

1. The nobility had a much lower mortality rate and many children so that third, fourth fifth sons etc were not able t inherit but survived and fell down into what became the middle class. Essentially the most intelligent rose to noble status and outbred everyone in this nice little feedback loop. Among the lower castes you had maybe like 20% survival rate to breeding. Anyone who raises animals understands that this is a good system.

2. We had uncounted generations of kind-of stability with the rule of law and very strict corporal punishment so that anyone unreasonably violent or with traits that today would lend themselves to felony status was culled from the population making each new generation a little tamer but also a little more intelligent and cooperative. 

Today, we're basically in the opposite boat. We are in this disgenic spiral towards violence with the most successful and intelligent being those with the lowest childbirth rate. If in addition to allowing felons to survive we give their growing numbers control over the country we only accelerate the decline. Anyway, that's my take on it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> How many felons want to/would actually vote?


I don't know how to get in touch with the other 2+ million, but here's one vote.....mine.

I bet I'll catch flack for admitting to this, but I not only wanted to continue exercising that right, I did so for about 8-10 years afterwards until Florida finally did a purge/check of their voter rolls.
That's been over 5 years ago and I guess I'm likely now on a national database somewhere.
It's a risk to even mention it semi-anonymously on the internet, but I haven't gotten a visit from the black SUV squad, but if I ever do, my answer will be the same as before..........
Show me anywhere in the Constitution other than treason where it says I can be involuntarily stripped of my civil rights?

Ironically or even hypocritically, the very place that you possibly _*could*_ find such a provision is the same place that the opposition to felons voting use to support their view. And at the same time, they deny what the REST of that amendment represents - a federally recognized "right to vote".
That significant spot is - the 14th Amendment.
It is often used for many other civil rights issues because of the equality clause.

But in this case (felons voting) the 14th is the reason the SCOTUS never overturned the states' laws on felons voting.
Even though at the time it was passed, the wording was in the context of the end of the Civil War and certain white males were being denied the right to vote, the wording is vague enough to cover a multitude of crimes.
In reality, the "crime" that is was referring to at THAT time, was taking up arms against the United States, IOW treason.
After a short period of such punishment, most were allowed to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S. and regain their "right to vote".

Sorry for the long winded historical rant, but it's kinda important to know all that before making serious judgements about other people's rights.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

When I started voting I had to pay a poll tax and swear the freemans oath.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Most politicians get their jobs by winning votes. But not everyone is granted that priveledge. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, everyone has the right to due process.... Many other rights are guaranteed but voting is not nor never has been one of them. We must be qualified to excericize that priveledge.


Yes, I know the prepared speech by heart now.

Orwell wrote a well known book with that theme........."Some animals are more equal than others."
It was written at a time when the world was faced with the prospect of dictators taking over free countries - those who elected their leaders by free will.

It often starts with the idea that only the privileged should make the decisions that affect the rest of the country. Eventually it progresses to only one man who claims that "privilege".

It's a dangerous road to travel and history has documented it.
Through several Amendments we have corrected our course to stay out of those dangerous waters.
But as we all know, constant vigilance is needed because the temptation is always there.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Alder said:


> NO.
> 
> We have enough damned parasites voting these days...no need to include convicted felons. Sorry, but there needs to be consequences for actions. Actually, there should be MORE consequences..not less.


Other than HD, no one has addressed that sentiment logically. I replied that no one should object to a full accounting of what that felon "cost" the rest of society and it should be repaid as part of his/her sentence before their rights are returned.




farmrbrown said:


> I forgot to add another point in logic vs. emotion.
> 
> "Taxation without representation" was the battle cry in this country's Revolutionary War.
> You won't find that specifically mentioned in the Constitution although Article I is full of relevant examples.
> ...


But specifics are important.
I paid taxes for 20 years before I did my year sentence.
No victims involved, thousands of dollars paid in fines and court costs., hundreds in probation and as soon as I got out, I went back to work and have paid taxes ever since, for the last 20 years.
To my knowledge, I have never been a "parasite", never on welfare, only once on unemployment during the Great Recession.

But as my question asked, at what point should the right to collect my taxes and deny me a vote in spending it, turn society into the "parasite" instead of the felon?
It's not asking for any money, simply the same rights that anyone else born here has. That doesn't cost a dime, does it?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alder said:


> Immaterial.
> I said "convicted".





Alder said:


> Immaterial.
> I said "convicted".


 Which question were you answering h ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you don't have time to read what was posted, then why did you waste so much time rambling?


I did read what was posted, there were many.
But experience has taught me to ask for the exact "claim" in question first, in certain cases, because the goal posts will be moved afterwards.


But YH also asked, and he and I are content to "ramble on"...........




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Many other rights are guaranteed but voting is not nor never has been one of them. We must be qualified to excericize that priveledge.


From the Bush v. Gore link.



> OCTOBER TERM, 2000
> 
> Syllabus
> 
> ...


That was the use of the 14th and it was cited in their reasoning several times.

You will of course enjoy the 1st part of this quote, just make sure you read all of it.



> The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in _McPherson _v. _Blacker, _146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. _Id., _at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''') (quoting
> 
> The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that
> 
> ...


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Which question were you answering h ?


Both. 
If the speeder accomplice was convicted of a felony, yank the voting privileges.
I personally have never been convicted of a felony.
Pretty black and white.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know how to get in touch with the other 2+ million, but here's one vote.....mine.


My question is still valid.

Between 50% and 60% of voting age population typically vote in a Presidential election. My guess is that a fairly substantial number of felons are in the 40%-50% that wouldn't vote even if they could. That's why I think felons should be able to re-earn the right to vote, but it should be challenging enough that only people serious about re-earning their vote will attempt to do so.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> Immaterial.
> I said "convicted".


You're telling us that someone who has managed to get away with serious and/or many crimes is morally superior to someone who caught a year and a day for being caught and convicted of something of negligible importance?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

of the people, for the people and by the people.
that gives any one the right to do whatever anybody else can do , lawfully..


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> My question is still valid.
> 
> Between 50% and 60% of voting age population typically vote in a Presidential election. My guess is that a fairly substantial number of felons are in the 40%-50% that wouldn't vote even if they could. That's why I think felons should be able to re-earn the right to vote, but it should be challenging enough that only people serious about re-earning their vote will attempt to do so.


I would say that managing to stay out of prison should be adequate.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

IndyDave said:


> I would say that managing to stay out of prison should be adequate.


I can already see the buses lining up to take felons to the polls.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> My question is still valid.
> 
> Between 50% and 60% of voting age population typically vote in a Presidential election. My guess is that a fairly substantial number of felons are in the 40%-50% that wouldn't vote even if they could. That's why I think felons should be able to re-earn the right to vote, but it should be challenging enough that only people serious about re-earning their vote will attempt to do so.


Yes, it was valid.
And I agree that the number of felons willing to participate in voting would not be higher than the general population.
At least that's my opinion based on the way things are now.
It's also possible that could change if they had the attitude when they got out that they had a chance to make a real difference in their future instead of continuing being punished for years after the fact.
But that's all speculation and up to each person to decide.
I decided I never wanted to go back and worked hard to make the best of what life has to offer and try and overcome whatever obstacles that remained.
With a new law that recently passed in my home state, I should be able to get most if not all of my rights restored.
The irony is, that decision to change the law, like all other votes, was never in my hands.
It was due to the effort of years of lobbying and appealing to those *with* the right to vote.
That's about the toughest way to change a law - without the power to cast a vote yourself.

But the very reason this is even being discussed at all is what I originally questioned.
Where did the right to strip a natural born citizen of their constitutional rights come from?
SCOTUS has already said that it can't be done, you can only renounce your citizenship yourself.
Yet the feds still claim the right to invalidate such things like the 2nd amendment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I can already see the buses lining up to take felons to the polls.


Well, I DID have to take the bus for awhile to work when I got out. 
Getting my license back was the 1st hurdle, then buying a cheap car on minimum wage was next.
I reckon if you want to get somewhere bad enough, you'll find a way............


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alder said:


> Both.
> If the speeder accomplice was convicted of a felony, yank the voting privileges.
> I personally have never been convicted of a felony.
> Pretty black and white.


 So as long as felons arnt caught they deserve to vote and when they are caught they no longer are ?
Why is your vote more or less valiant to the country based on what a third party does ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

While looking up different things related to this topic, I found this......

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20020812_RL31532_c1ed0b2b05d65d7d2b29c5426a21d1999bc25424.pdf

.......the summary is, that being a felon does NOT disqualify you from federal office.
How's that for irony?
You can be elected and not be able to vote in your election?


----------



## blanket (May 28, 2013)

just more ways to pimp the Democratic vote


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Last year, 100,000 people from California refused jury Duty because they were not US citizens, but were registered to vote.
But here we sit, mulling over if a citizen felon can vote.

It only came up because a student asked Bernie Sanders if he supported felons voting. He said that every person ( I assume he meant citizens) should be allowed to vote, in the joint or out.

Like most things, they are complex. Someone mentioned those locked up for dealing pot. Seen as "minor" felonies. I think most people would bristle at allowing the Boston Marathon Bomber voting rights from a prison cell. 

Who is going to determine which felons get to vote? Every crime and every situation is different.
Then, we have to factor the party bias. If, just if, 70% of the felons in the US were Democrats? Wouldn't making voting an inalienable right favor one party?


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

Yeah, 100,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to felons. I don't think many here appreciate the demographic implications of allowing felons to vote.. yearly prison populations are over 2 million. Multiply that by say 20 years and there is your new voting block. You might as well day goodbye to Republicans in government... Not that they're good for all that much these days


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

dyrne said:


> Yeah, 100,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to felons. I don't think many here appreciate the demographic implications of allowing felons to vote.. yearly prison populations are over 2 million. Multiply that by say 20 years and there is your new voting block. You might as well day goodbye to Republicans in government... Not that they're good for all that much these days


Two problems here:

First, that 100,000 represents only illegals registered to vote WHO WERE CALLED UP FOR JURY DUTY--Not all illegals registered to vote. Further, this was in California only. Beyond that, nationally there are enough precincts with more registered voters than there are living people that I am satisfied that voting felons are the least of our electoral worries.

Second, most of the felons with whom I have been acquainted leaned conservative. Having worked in two different prisons, I have been acquainted with more felons than most people with acknowledgement that Haypoint and Farmrbrown probably have a more developed perspective than I do.


----------



## blanket (May 28, 2013)

look at the demographics of convicted felons


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

blanket said:


> look at the demographics of convicted felons


That said, in my experience being incarcerated tends to bring out a spirit of MYOB directed at the government, which leads to right-leaning. The exception I recall was the 1996 primary for governor. The inmates' reaction to the most conservative candidate: "Please don't vote for Rex Early!" The reason is that for some strange reason, he made establishing chain gangs his trademark issue. We already had inmate work crews (sans interconnected chains) and more important, we had 95 things to worry about and that wasn't one of them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know how to get in touch with the other 2+ million, but here's one vote.....mine.
> 
> I bet I'll catch flack for admitting to this, but I not only wanted to continue exercising that right, I did so for about 8-10 years afterwards until Florida finally did a purge/check of their voter rolls.
> That's been over 5 years ago and I guess I'm likely now on a national database somewhere.
> ...


Except there is no "right to vote" nor has their ever been. There has always been qualifiers required to excericize that priveledge. How about stripping people of some actual rights by taking their guns away when we lock them up? They lose their guns, their freedom and that one about pursuit of happiness. No reason for them retain voting privileges is there? Driving under the enfluence can get your driving privileges revoked too. Or do you think we have some "right" to drive on our hi ways too? Do you think we have a right to marry? Or do you not see the difference between rights and privileges?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> of the people, for the people and by the people.
> that gives any one the right to do whatever anybody else can do , lawfully..


Good old Lincoln and his plagerism strikes again. The federal government was never designed to be a government for the people.... It is A government of and for the states.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Except their no "right to vote" nor has their ever been. How about stripping people of some actual rights by taking their guns away when we lock them up? They lose their guns, their freedom and that one about pursuit of happiness. No reason for them retain voting privileges is there? Driving under the enfluence can get your driving privileges revoked too. Or do you think we have some "right" to drive on our hi ways too? Do you think we have a right to marry? Or do you not see the difference between rights and privileges?


That's one way to look at it, but I think it is an example of what most would call Un-American.
Having an unelected ruler such as a king, is what got this party started over here in the colonies, remember?
I guess when the boys pulled out their guns on the British soldiers and started vandalizing the tea shipment, they could have accepted their felony convictions and gone back to being ruled by a monarchy.


But I'll answer your questions anyway......

Owning a gun?
I think the 2nd amendment still stands and I don't see any restrictions on it mentioned including criminal convictions, do you?

A prison cell will definitely curb your freedom, but the pursuit of happiness doesn't have to be extinguished. Hope springs eternal.

A bigger obstacle to driving is whether or not you have a road or decent path for your vehicle.
Therefore those who drive, pay for those roads at the gas pump.
If you ain't driving any more, you're not paying for the cost of the roads.
Seems to me if you ARE pumping gas, you DO have the "right" to drive on them.

When I got married to my wife, I don't remember anyone stopping me, so I reckon I must have had that right.
Was it the same for you too?

Yes, I do see the difference between rights and privileges, but I don't recognize too many things as "privileged".
In America, we've been taught that almost anything that someone else has attained, we have a right to attain our goals too. I think it comes from that beloved phrase, "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights........."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> That's one way to look at it, but I think it is an example of what most would call Un-American.
> Having an unelected ruler such as a king, is what got this party started over here in the colonies, remember?
> I guess when the boys pulled out their guns on the British soldiers and started vandalizing the tea shipment, they could have accepted their felony convictions and gone back to being ruled by a monarchy.
> 
> ...


That's a good phrase... I support it myself, but voting has never ever been on that list. 
When I got married I had several questions I had to answer prior to being issued the license. Things like if I was married to someone else? Was I of legal age? Was I kin to my bride to be? It becomes quite clear that getting married is a privilege, not a right. Driving on our roads is the same. There are conditions that must be met. Again, priveledge vs a right. Owning a gun? Definately and unquestionably a right, named as such in the constitution. I do see the wisdom of not allowing convicts to possess them while in custody.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But *experience has taught me* to ask for the exact "claim" in question first, in certain cases, because the goal posts will be moved afterwards.


Experience has taught me you can't give straight answers to simple questions.



farmrbrown said:


> My time is too valuable for games.


Tell that to someone who doesn't know better.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

XV gives the right to vote. It was ratified by the states.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> XV *gives the right to vote*. It was ratified by the states.


The XV only spoke about not being able to *prevent* citizens from voting based on race.
It doesn't "give" any rights at all.

The 2nd says they can't infringe on *the right of* *the people* to "keep and bear" arms.
The right itself predated the Constitution.

The XV wasn't seen as giving women a "right" to vote, since that didn't happen until 1920.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE. Section 1. Without applying double speak, it seems self explanatory.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The XV only spoke about not being able to *prevent* citizens from voting based on race.
> It doesn't "give" any rights at all.
> The 2nd says they can't infringe on *the right of* *the people* to "keep and bear" arms.
> The right itself predated the Constitution.
> ...


Given that the amendment refers to voting as a right, at minimum there is a reasonable argument to be made.

Fifteenth Amendment:
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.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Experience has taught me you can't give straight answers to simple questions.


You are right. He can't do so. Neither can I. Neither can anyone else. With most other people we can explain the point we wish to make and discuss the matter of principle we wish to consider. When dealing with someone who is going to pick apart every aspect of what we say looking for a "gotcha" moment rather than addressing the point we are trying to make we have to write our thoughts in our best immitation lawyerese which necessarily rules out anything resembling a straight answer.


----------



## snowlady (Aug 1, 2011)

After they have paid their debt, yes. BIL did time in the federal pen for white collar felonies. Time done, debts paid, productive member of society and family before and after.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Restore all rights, including gun rights.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's a good phrase... I support it myself, but voting has never ever been on that list.
> When I got married I had several questions I had to answer prior to being issued the license. Things like if I was married to someone else? Was I of legal age? Was I kin to my bride to be? It becomes quite clear that getting married is a privilege, not a right. Driving on our roads is the same. There are conditions that must be met. Again, priveledge vs a right. Owning a gun? Definately and unquestionably a right, named as such in the constitution. I do see the wisdom of not allowing convicts to possess them while in custody.


Yes, we see things differently.
I consider it a right for me to vote otherwise the gov't doesn't get the "privilege" of collecting my hard earned money for taxes.
Your marriage questions have to do with laws on the books such as bigamy or the same as any other contract - to be of legal age, not that it isn't a right.
Same as driving, same as guns.
6 year olds aren't married, driving Chevy's and carrying pistols. Never have, never will.
But by age 21 they can and do have that "right".

I quoted some of the SCOTUS opinions from Bush v. Gore on whether voting was or was not an affirmed "right" in this country now. There are several other decisions where this has also been documented, one of the more famous is where we get the phrase "one man, one vote". I've forgotten the Justice who coined it, maybe Burger, Warren or Brennan.
Regardless, your argument is with them, not me.
The only detail about the right to vote is where it comes from. It comes from the states (today in all 50) and that derives from the 10th, 12th and 17th amendment as well as Article I section 4.


Even prison guards aren't allowed firearms unless they are in the locked towers, that's a known fact.
But in 1968, the U.S. passed a federal law that strips away the 2nd amendment for certain people that are NOT behind prison gates anymore.........the topic of this thread - convicted felons.
As someone so interested is what the Constitution does or doesn't allow, I would think you would be in favor equal right for all citizens.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, we see things differently.
> I consider it a right for me to vote otherwise the gov't doesn't get the "privilege" of collecting my hard earned money for taxes.
> Your marriage questions have to do with laws on the books such as bigamy or the same as any other contract - to be of legal age, not that it isn't a right.
> Same as driving, same as guns.
> ...


Equal rights as well as equal privileges. There are differences.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Experience has taught me you can't give straight answers to simple questions.


LOL.
Yep, that's why I gave my answer to YH instead. At least he talks straight to me without "scroll back, it's already been said, etc." and never bothering to worry about if something was missed or repeated.
That's how normal people converse.
If I ask someone, "What do you mean exactly?" and they won't bother telling me directly, there really isn't any point in trying to communicate because it's fussing and fighting that they truly want.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> So as long as felons arnt caught they deserve to vote and when they are caught they no longer are ?
> Why is your vote more or less valiant to the country based on what a third party does ?


Trying to decipher here:
But it seems that you still don't understand that I said CONVICTED felons which means that they have passed a STANDARD of PROOF OF GUILT based on our society's legal system. That's a hard-filter that tells me they should have some severe CONSEQUENCES. I know a lot of people these days don't believe there should be consequences for their actions, but I'm not one of them.

Your second sentence...I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say/ask.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> You're telling us that someone who has managed to get away with serious and/or many crimes is morally superior to someone who caught a year and a day for being caught and convicted of something of negligible importance?


No. They are LEGALLY superior.

In an organized, civilized society, the LAW has to be the final arbiter. Otherwise, there is anarchy.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> No. They are LEGALLY superior.
> 
> In an organized society, the LAW has to be the final arbiter. Otherwise, there is no civilization...only anarchy.


Ok, so you believe there is no need for the law to be morally and ethically upright?

You may want to take a look at the path taken in our criminal law, role of government in our lives, and likely future developments in light of this:



> The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
> 
> Ayn Rand


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Ok, so you believe there is no need for the law to be morally and ethically upright?


Based on the societal norms, that is the whole idea behind the law.

Too many these days consider themselves to be a special case. The law can't change just because you (or some other self-appointed morally superior individual *who just so happens to also be a convicted felon*) deems themselves worthy of exemption.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

My experience in debating these matters is that no amount of legal logic or documentation will overcome deep emotions.
And this I'm asking in general, with a nod to YH, because even when we disagree, I know his heart is usually in the right place.

I referred to this as fundamentally "Un-American" on it's premise. The idea of extolling taxes on a certain population and treating them as 2nd class citizens, whether some of them were here as criminals from Europe or not, was the spark that started our Revolution.
Some may recoil at the idea that some of Founders were less than saints, but I think we all know truth is stinger than fiction.
Whether it was a noble adventure, or a drunken brawl at the Boston Harbor that night is for the details of history.
But what it fed was a concept that was unique at that time, that all people had certain rights that no gov't entity had better tread on, and if they did, they did so at their own peril.

Many times we ask ourselves are we living up to that uniquely American ideal or not?
That question is rhetorical, and posters can answer it or not.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Alder said:


> Based on the societal norms, that is the whole idea behind the law.
> 
> Too many these days consider themselves to be a special case. The law can't change just because you (or some other self-appointed morally superior individual *who just so happens to also be a convicted felon*) deems themselves worthy of exemption.


Florida finally did. It used to be a life sentence for serving 365 days.
It took decades of asking, but the fact is laws CAN change.
Ask anyone who's ancestors used to be in chains if changing a law can be a good thing?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE. Section 1. Without applying double speak, it seems self explanatory.


No double speak required.

The SCOTUS has ruled in US V. Reese 1876 that the 15th did not convey the right to vote. It just eliminated one person being not allowed to vote because of race, color or condition of servitude when others were ALLOWED to vote.

"In _United States v. Reese_ (1876),[38] the first U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the amendment narrowly, upholding ostensibly race-neutral limitations on suffrage including poll taxes, literacy tests, and a grandfather clause that exempted citizens from other voting requirements if their grandfathers had been registered voters, a condition only white men could generally meet.[39][40] The Court also stated that the amendment does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation".[41] The Court wrote........"


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> Based on the societal norms, that is the whole idea behind the law.
> 
> Too many these days consider themselves to be a special case. The law can't change just because you (or some other self-appointed morally superior individual *who just so happens to also be a convicted felon*) deems themselves worthy of exemption.


You do not believe in objective right and wrong. Thank you for your honesty.

You may want to consider this as your own freedom may eventually be in jeopardy:



> The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
> 
> Ayn Rand


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *You are right. He can't do so.* Neither can I. Neither can anyone else. With most other people we can explain the point we wish to make and discuss the matter of principle we wish to consider. When dealing with someone who is going to pick apart every aspect of what we say looking for a "gotcha" moment rather than addressing the point we are trying to make we have to write our thoughts in our best immitation lawyerese which necessarily rules out anything resembling a straight answer.


Context matters.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The SCOTUS has ruled in US V. Reese 1876 that the 15th did convey the right to vote.


No to *everyone.*



nchobbyfarm said:


> "In _United States v. Reese_ (1876),[38] the first U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the amendment narrowly, upholding ostensibly race-neutral limitations on suffrage including poll taxes, literacy tests, and a grandfather clause that exempted citizens from other voting requirements if their grandfathers had been registered voters, a condition *only white men* could generally meet.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Context matters.


Yes, and the ongoing context is that of regularly dealing with someone who doesn't care to understand most other people or have a real discussion but rather tear others down for the fun of being "right" whether right or not.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No to *everyone.*



It was a typo I corrected almost immediately. Slow down there Tex!

ETA- another typo. Autocorrect creates several on the dang phone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> Yep, that's why I gave my answer to YH instead. At least he talks straight to me without "scroll back, it's already been said, etc." and never bothering to worry about if something was missed or repeated.
> That's how normal people converse.
> *If I ask someone*, "What do you mean exactly?" and they won't bother telling me directly, there really isn't any point in trying to communicate because it's fussing and fighting that they truly want.


The question you asked had already been answered.

If I ask you a simple question and you ramble on for pages (or years) without giving a straight answer, how is that any different?



> it's fussing and fighting that they truly want.


Divert and distract, but still no answer.
It's exactly what I expected.
SSDD


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Yes, and the ongoing context is that of regularly dealing with someone who *doesn't care to understand most other people* or have a real discussion but rather tear others down for the fun of being "right" whether right or not.


I understand a lot more than you know.
But that has nothing to do with felon's rights restoration.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> *It was a typo* I corrected almost immediately. Slow down there Tex!


I reply what is posted .
I can't reply to "future corrections".


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand a lot more than you know.
> But that has nothing to do with felons rights restoration.


I really don't know what you understand nor do I care. My point is that your adversarial approach on most every topic which serves to convert a discussion into an argument gets tiresome. It leads me to the conclusion that you derive your enjoyment from being an irritation to others. It must be truly sad to be in such a state to have to resort to such to find enjoyment.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I reply what is posted .
> I can't reply to "future corrections".


Why not? You already profess to know what we think and what our experiences do or do not indicate regardless of what we observed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *I really don't know* what you understand nor do I care. My point is that *your adversarial approach* on most every topic which serves to convert a discussion into an argument gets tiresome.


I realize that you don't know.

Who's being "adversarial" now?

If you think my posts are "tiresome", stop reading and quoting them, and you will no longer have a "problem". 

Otherwise you will only succeed in getting your friend's thread locked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Why not? You already profess to know what we think and what our experiences do or do not indicate regardless of what we observed.


See my last post.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> No double speak required.
> 
> The SCOTUS has ruled in US V. Reese 1876 that the 15th did not convey the right to vote. It just eliminated one person being not allowed to vote because of race, color or condition of servitude when others were ALLOWED to vote.
> 
> "In _United States v. Reese_ (1876),[38] the first U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the amendment narrowly, upholding ostensibly race-neutral limitations on suffrage including poll taxes, literacy tests, and a grandfather clause that exempted citizens from other voting requirements if their grandfathers had been registered voters, a condition only white men could generally meet.[39][40] The Court also stated that the amendment does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation".[41] The Court wrote........"


That was one interpretation. Many more came out in the years following.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alder said:


> Too many these days consider themselves to be a special case. The law can't change just because you (or some other *self-appointed morally superior individual* _who just so happens to also be a convicted felon_) deems themselves worthy of exemption.


Yes, many talk about believing in "following the rules" when they really only mean it for others.
They often ignore those same rules when it pertains to themselves.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> That was one interpretation. Many more came out in the years following.


I haven't read a SCOTUS ruling that changed the US v Reese interpretation but I would like to if you could point me toward the ruling or case.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> You do not believe in objective right and wrong. Thank you for your honesty.


The law's primary goal is to be objective. Morality is inherently subjective.


Objective:
_adjective_
adjective: *objective*
1.​(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms:impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, nondiscriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical
"an interviewer must try to be objective"



Subjective:
_adjective_
adjective: *subjective*

1.​based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonymsersonal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic; More
biased, prejudiced, bigoted, idiosyncratic, irrational;
_informal_gut, gut reaction
"standards can be judged on quantitative data rather than on subjective opinion"
antonymsbjective, impartial
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, many talk about believing in "following the rules" when they really only mean it for others.
> They often ignore those same rules when it pertains to themselves.


I am thankful that the authors of the Indiana Constitution are wiser than some other people.

Article I, Section 19:



> Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.


So much for the law being infallible.

I am curious how you concluded that we do not support uniformity in law. Our position is NOT selective in its application. It is the belief that all free citizens should be equal and those too dangerous to be trusted with all their rights are too dangerous to be roaming free.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> The law's primary goal is to be objective. Morality is inherently subjective.
> 
> 
> Objective:
> ...


We have a system of law in which people can see the rest of their lives destroyed for relatively minor offenses when serving their sentences should be adequate, enough money or connections can get you out of anything, and you are calling the system objective?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> So much for the law being infallible.


Who said it was, and what does any of that have to do with what I said?



> Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.


A jury would have all the facts presented before making any determinations.
Since they are chosen randomly they are seldom biased, unlike the *context* here.

None of that has anything to do with the OP topic, nor my statements though.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who said it was, and what does any of that have to do with what I said?
> 
> 
> A jury would have all the facts presented before making any determinations.
> ...


Addressing inherently unjust laws doesn't have anything to do with convictions becoming a de facto demotion to second-class citizenship? Really? 

Go back and read that amendment again. That gives the jury authority to interpret the law and opens the door to jury nullification.

Oh, and contrary to your assertion attributed to context, which I presume is directed at Farmrbrown, it would also seem, ironically enough in context, to be directed at me as well, how do you establish this bias or lack thereof in a jury? I have never been involved in illegal activity greater than traffic infractions. How am I biased and how would someone of similar background magically become unbiased by being selected for jury duty?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Addressing inherently unjust laws doesn't have anything to do with convictions becoming a de facto demotion to second-class citizenship? Really?
> 
> Go back and read that amendment again. That gives the jury authority to interpret the law and opens the door to jury nullification.


It was a simple statement.
Your post has nothing do to with what I said, and no one claimed the law was "infallible".


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was a simple statement.
> Your post has nothing do to with what I said, and no one claimed the law was "infallible".


No one said it so bluntly; However, as you are so fond of saying, patterns never change, and you are in the habit of making arguments holding the law as final arbiter which necessarily rest on that position. We have also had arguments made earlier in this thread which necessarily rest on that notion.

By the way, do you understand the difference between _malum in se_ and _malum prohibitum?_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> No one said it so bluntly;


No one said it at all.



IndyDave said:


> By the way, *do you understand* the difference between _malum in se_ and _malum prohibitum?_


Do you understand "that has nothing to do with what I said"?

I also understand what you're doing now too. 

https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/why.591794/


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one said it at all.
> 
> 
> Do you understand "that has nothing to do with what I said"?
> ...


Again, as you say, patterns never change. You have relied plenty on the notion that law is the final arbiter of right and wrong. We have another passenger riding that same wagon today. In the absence of cognitive dissonance, that position necessarily has to rest on the idea that the law is infallible.

_Malum in se_ is a legal term meaning that something is inherently bad or wrong.

_Malum prohibitum_ similarly means that something is bad or wrong because it is [arbitrarily] prohibited.

Now, think really hard about that before advocating ruining the remainder of someone's life because their choices are not to the preference of others in our supposedly free society.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> We have a system of law in which people can see the rest of their lives destroyed for relatively minor offenses when serving their sentences should be adequate, enough money or connections can get you out of anything, and you are calling the system objective?


That's the goal. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best we got.

Bottom line: I'm a hard-ass. I live in a "no-whiner" zone. Life ain't fair. Don't be a screw-up.

Get over it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Again, as you say, patterns never change.


You're correct, because you're *still* quoting me when most of what you're saying has no relevance to what I said before.



IndyDave said:


> Now, think really hard about that *before advocating ruining the remainder of someone's life* because their choices are not to the preference of others in our supposedly free society.


I don't think you've been paying attention.
I think I'll stop paying attention to you now.
I suspect you won't pay attention to that either.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

M


AmericanStand said:


> So as long as felons arnt caught they deserve to vote and when they are caught they no longer are ?
> Why is your vote more or less valiant to the country based on what a third party does ?





Alder said:


> Trying to decipher here:
> But it seems that you still don't understand that I said CONVICTED felons which means that they have passed a STANDARD of PROOF OF GUILT based on our society's legal system. That's a hard-filter that tells me they should have some severe CONSEQUENCES. I know a lot of people these days don't believe there should be consequences for their actions, but I'm not one of them.
> 
> Your second sentence...I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say/ask.


 I’m sure you don’t understand

Please try to understand with a open mind that in some areas being a convicted felon has nothing to do with what you have done but everything to do with how bad a certain politician needs votes.

Give me enough access to your life and the right political position and I am positive I can have you convicted of a felony.

It’s just luck you are not a convicted felon. Keep that in mind when you deal out the punishment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Since logic usually won't override emotion, as some posters have proven, I can only hope to appeal to that side of the argument..........

You say, you screwed up and have to pay, maybe for the rest of your life.
Then you say, when we let you out, go back to work, obey the law and be a productive member of society.
OK so far.
BUT, we never have any intention of really letting you back in, and for all your obedience, we are still going to continue punishment and treating you like less than a citizen.

I get it, and don't think for a minute that the felons don't get it either.
That's the reason some say, screw this, three's no point to following the law anymore and the authority you claim over me now is invalid. It's just a one way street of vengeance and they turn it back into a two way street again.

My point is, you reap what you sow.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> That's the goal. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best we got.
> 
> Bottom line: I'm a hard-ass. I live in a "no-whiner" zone. Life ain't fair. Don't be a screw-up.
> 
> Get over it.


Remember that when it catches up with you or yours.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> That's the goal. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best we got.
> 
> Bottom line: I'm a hard-ass. I live in a "no-whiner" zone. Life ain't fair. Don't be a screw-up.
> 
> Get over it.


If you want to go down that path, if we are never going to get the .God's hooks out of a person once there is a conviction, why don't we go all in? If you screw up. Regardless of whether its failure to signal a turn or mass murder, its life in prison.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> If you want to go down that path, if we are never going to get the .God's hooks out of a person once there is a conviction, why don't we go all in? If you screw up. Regardless of whether its failure to signal a turn or mass murder, its life in prison.


I think the idea is to match the punishment to the crime.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alder said:


> That's the goal. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best we got.
> 
> Bottom line: I'm a hard-ass. I live in a "no-whiner" zone. Life ain't fair. Don't be a screw-up.
> 
> Get over it.


 Great feel free to quit whining and shut up. 
Most here will Defend your right to do so.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the idea is to match the punishment to the crime.


But that’s the point. 
Doing something as small as riding with someone who is a few miles over the speed limit could ruin your life forever. 
Is that a match in your eyes ?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the idea is to match the punishment to the crime.


Exactly. If you deserve a lifetime demotion to second-class status, You should never see the outside of a prison again. It is frustrating that I have to resort to such an extreme hyperbole in order to make that point.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> But that’s the point.
> Doing something as small as riding with someone who is a few miles over the speed limit could ruin your life forever.
> Is that a match in your eyes ?


I have a hunch there is more to the story than simply being in the vehicle that gets stopped for a few miles over the limit.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a hunch there is more to the story than simply being in the vehicle that gets stopped for a few miles over the limit.


It would have to cross the reckless driving threshold, but vindictive prosecutor can stretch a felony conspiracy charge out of it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> It would have to cross the reckless driving threshold, but vindictive prosecutor can stretch a felony conspiracy charge out of it.


Like I said, there more to the story somewhere. A traffic ticket doesn't send a passenger to jail. Felony conspiracy is tough case to prove as well, ask mueller!


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Like I said, there more to the story somewhere. A traffic ticket doesn't send a passenger to jail. Felony conspiracy is tough case to prove as well, ask mueller!


Ok, a more common scenario: your passenger is carrying prohibited substances of which you are unaware. You WILL go to jail and most likely will catch a conviction.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Ok, a more common scenario: your passenger is carrying prohibited substances of which you are unaware. You WILL go to jail and most likely will catch a conviction.


Now we are getting somewhere. Drug dealing is frowned upon in today's society.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. Drug dealing is frowned upon in today's society.


Now, is it acceptable for a person to have the rest of his life ruined for not knowing what was in his buddy's pockets?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Doing something as small as riding with someone who is a few miles over the speed limit could ruin your life forever.


Please show a statute which supports that claim that you've made more than once now.
I'm betting you won't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Now, is it acceptable for a person to have the rest of his life ruined for not knowing what was in his buddy's pockets?


Yep, one should be careful the company they keep. Not quite sure what you mean by "rest of their life ruined" though? Voting or not voting isn't a life buster.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> 
> I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


Of coures not! That is about the dumbest thing since the global warming hoax (the man-caused part is the hoax - of course the climate is changing since we are stil coming out of the ittle ice age). But then look at the moronic dirtbags who thought up the idea of letting criminals vote and I guess it is no surprose. I just wish SHTF would get here so we can get this over with


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

dyrne said:


> Yeah, 100,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to felons. I don't think many here appreciate the demographic implications of allowing felons to vote.. yearly prison populations are over 2 million. Multiply that by say 20 years and there is your new voting block. You might as well day goodbye to Republicans in government... Not that they're good for all that much these days


I believe the 100,000 were just the illegal aliens that were called to jury duty. Perhaps just the tip of the iceberg?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, one should be careful the company they keep. Not quite sure what you mean by "rest of their life ruined" though? Voting or not voting isn't a life buster.



True, it isn't a life buster.
It's more of a continuing insult. "You have to obey laws without the right to vote on them and pay taxes without a say so in how they are spent, unlike the rest of American citizens."
I've been more frustrated with losing my 2nd Amendment right. That one _could_ be a life buster given the right (or wrong) circumstances. I've had to settle for keeping a good alternative weapon around, good dogs and a sharp wit to provide a minimum level of self defense. But I sure miss the comfort and security of having a Colt 45 available a few times. The 4 legged threats like bears don't seem to be able to tell the difference between that and a few M-80's fortunately. So far I've managed to get by though.
But it is irritating to hear oneself referred to in disparaging terms and see the contempt as acceptable and justified, decades after the relatively minor crime was paid for.
It's probably something that would only be understood if you walked a few miles in those shoes.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, one should be careful the company they keep. Not quite sure what you mean by "rest of their life ruined" though? *Voting or not voting isn't a life buster*.


Perhaps not, but it is part of a package that is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> True, it isn't a life buster.
> It's more of a continuing insult. "You have to obey laws without the right to vote on them and pay taxes without a say so in how they are spent, unlike the rest of American citizens."
> I've been more frustrated with losing my 2nd Amendment right. That one _could_ be a life buster given the right (or wrong) circumstances. I've had to settle for keeping a good alternative weapon around, good dogs and a sharp wit to provide a minimum level of self defense. But I sure miss the comfort and security of having a Colt 45 available a few times. The 4 legged threats like bears don't seem to be able to tell the difference between that and a few M-80's fortunately. So far I've managed to get by though.
> But it is irritating to hear oneself referred to in disparaging terms and see the contempt as acceptable and justified, decades after the relatively minor crime was paid for.
> It's probably something that would only be understood if you walked a few miles in those shoes.


I completely agree with you on the right to keep and bear arms. Self defense is and has always been one of those inalienable God given rights. You should be able to pick up your weapons when being released from custody. Voting does not fall in that category.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Now, while several of you are going all sanctimonious in this thread, consider that about 20 years ago Merle Haggard said:
*
"In 1960, when I came out of prison as an ex-convict, I had more freedom under parolee supervision than there's available... in America right now."*

Take that in tandem with the very insightful Ayn Rand quote I posted earlier and tell me if you still like the path you are arguing to follow.

What are you going to do when one day you realize that today's released felons have more freedom than the upstanding folk have at the point in the future when you have this epiphany?

For your convenience, I will post this again:
*
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

--Ayn Rand*


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

A guy I was in high school with was convicted of a felony, did his time, was released and paid the fee to have all of his rights restored and now if he is background checked, his "branded man status" is as a fully reinfranchised citizen. It isn't a pardon and expungement because he fully paid his debt to society and paid the fee to get his rights back after his release.

Other than he still having a closed but notated felony record, he can vote, own firearms as anyone who has never committed a crime even though he spent almost a decade in DOC custody paying his debt to society in full .

I recall that he told me that after he did his time and DoC released him, none of the prison administrative staff told him he could apply to get his rights back for fees of a few grand but when he found out , he considered the fees just the last part of the restitution fines he had to pay by selling his land as part of his sentence to pay his debt and get back to where he was the day before the night when he did the stupidest thing of his life. 

25 years after doing his time, he no longer has his 100 plus acres but he is married, raised two kids, has a paid off house and 30 acres and told his sons enough horror stories of life behind bars neither one would risk spitting on a sidewalk.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a hunch there is more to the story than simply being in the vehicle that gets stopped for a few miles over the limit.


LOL there is no story it was simply the Law in Illinois for some years.

Do you want some stories of how narrow the line is between convicted felon and not?

The first one I remember happened when I was 16 year old stupid kid. there was a traffic jam on the way to Fort Richardson Alaska certain blue sedan kept cutting me off in traffic, just before we got on base I got ahead and gave him the finger as I went by a few minutes later the same car pulled behind me on base and pulled out the cop lights.
I figured a BS ticket but this guy drops a kilo of coke in my trunk and starts taking pictures.
Pretty serious felony On base back then. The provost Marshal was waging a personal war on drugs back then.
Shortly Im in shackles and cuffs Standing in front of the desk Sergeant Being booked. Lucky for they stood me right next the the Provost Marshels Door and I was able to more or less fall into his room after someone walked in.
Colonel Newton had me hard against the wall be for the arresting MPs got through the door.
It took him a second to recognize me.
His son Jeff and I were best friends so he held me there a while as he asked the MPs to explain the charges then dismissed them and heard my side of the story. He knew me well enough to know I never had the kinda money that it takes to buy a kilo or the kinda money one makes from it, he knew I didn't use the stuff heck I wouldn't even take a extra aspirin back then
In Short the luck of being best friends with Jeff, working with him and spending a lot of time camping and fishing with his dad kept me from being a CONVICTED felon that day.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Like I said, there more to the story somewhere. A traffic ticket doesn't send a passenger to jail. Felony conspiracy is tough case to prove as well, ask mueller!


NO NOT FELONY CONSPIRACY.
Simple mob action which is the crime of being present when another crime is committed.
There were a few years in Illinois when they made mob action a felony It wasn't in grades just all feloney.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Like I said, there more to the story somewhere. A traffic ticket doesn't send a passenger to jail.


 You are right in a way This is one of those laws that cops and prosecutors use at their discretion.
Its a "pile On" law. throw it at people you don't like when you cant prove anything else. 
Use it to scare someone into accepting a bad plea deal that lets them off the felony.
Use it to get Brother A to agree to something he might beat to keep little brother B from being convicted for a felony.
The real story is that there are just way to many things that were made felonies so some politician could be tough on crime.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Preventing felons from voting has a greater effect on the Black population. Since they commit a higher percentage of felonies, they are deprived of their voting rights at a greater degree. Sounds unfair?

Preventing felons from buying hand guns has a greater effect on the Black population, too. Should we drop the restrictions on gun purchases by felons to be less racist?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Of course



I don't care about the racist thing so much as there never should have been any restrictions on a gun purchase in the first place.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

50 years ago, my neighbor was turned down on a Federal farm loan that he had worked toward his whole life. Being unable to buy the farm, his wife and children left him. With his life in turmoil, he stole many sticks of dynamite. He drove to a nearby Air Force base and dropped the dynamite into a couple 100,000 gallon fuel tanks. Then he wrote to the President, expressed both his anger and detailed his actions. The Air Force had to fish out the dynamite. At no time was this action going to cause an explosion, more of an embarrassment to Security. My neighbor went to Federal prison and upon his release lost his right to own a firearm of any kind. I don't think he can vote, either.

He raises sheep in an area with bear, coyotes and wolves. But without a rifle, just has to let the sheep be killed.

Do you trust the government? Do you trust the court system? If the line is drawn far from you is it more fair than a line drawn close to you?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Alder said:


> The law's primary goal is to be objective. Morality is inherently subjective.


If laws are objective, why is it that the Supreme Court rarely votes 9 to 0? Because laws are as subjective as everything else is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> dyrne said: ↑
> Yeah, 100,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to felons. *I don't think many here appreciate the demographic implications of allowing felons to vote..* yearly prison populations are over 2 million. Multiply that by say 20 years and there is your new voting block. You might as well day goodbye to Republicans in government... Not that they're good for all that much these days


I don't think many take the time to learn what the laws are *now*:

https://www.thoughtco.com/where-felons-can-and-cannot-vote-3367689
*Felonies After Completion of Sentence*
These states restore voting rights to those convicted of felony crimes only after they have completed their entire sentences including prison term, parole, and probation, among other certain requirements.

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> LOL there is no story it was simply the Law in Illinois for some years.


Then it should be easy for you to show the statutes.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> If laws are objective, why is it that the Supreme Court rarely votes 9 to 0? Because laws are as subjective as everything else is.


I said the *primary goal* is to be objective. Nothing involving human endeavor is perfect.

Gads...some of you have selective reading comprehension.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Did you mean to say us instead of you ?


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Did you mean to say us instead of you ?


Nope.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Alder said:


> I said the *primary goal* is to be objective. Nothing involving human endeavor is perfect.
> 
> Gads...some of you have selective reading comprehension.


Let's see...

You support lifetime disenfranchisement of people convicted of even the most trifling felonies, don't care that far worse criminals are still carrying a full set of rights, and you never made mention of people wrongly convicted suffering for the rest of their lives. I will definitely have to add the fact that you have no authority affecting my life to my list of things for which to be thankful.



Shrek said:


> A guy I was in high school with was convicted of a felony, did his time, was released and paid the fee to have all of his rights restored and now if he is background checked, his "branded man status" is as a fully reinfranchised citizen. It isn't a pardon and expungement because he fully paid his debt to society and paid the fee to get his rights back after his release.
> 
> Other than he still having a closed but notated felony record, he can vote, own firearms as anyone who has never committed a crime even though he spent almost a decade in DOC custody paying his debt to society in full .
> 
> ...


You will find that this is something which may or may not be granted. I have known a couple of people who applied for such restoration following white collar crimes with no individual victim. It never happened. The crimes happened in the early 80s. Both died in the last few years as still disenfranchised felons.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't think many take the time to learn what the laws are *now*:
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/where-felons-can-and-cannot-vote-3367689
> *Felonies After Completion of Sentence*
> ...


Given that I don't live in any of those states, I never felt the need to worry about them too much.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

No, if you've committed a felony, you've given up your rights.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> No, if you've committed a felony, you've given up your rights.


 Have you given up your rights ? Do you think you should be forced to ?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I would say let the punishment fit the crime. Some felons should never have the opportunity to vote again, some should. Some felons should never own a gun again, some should. Violence, or, number of convictions should be taken into account.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mnn2501 said:


> No, if you've committed a felony, you've given up your rights.


The problem here is that none of our rights have an asterisk after them. Where it is addressed at all, the Constitution only accepts abridgement of rights while incarcerated.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> I would say let the punishment fit the crime. Some felons should never have the opportunity to vote again, some should. Some felons should never own a gun again, some should. Violence, or, number of convictions should be taken into account.


Again, I will stand by my position that if they are too dangerous to have all their rights, they are too dangerous to be roaming free.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> I would say let the punishment fit the crime. Some felons should never have the opportunity to vote again, some should. Some felons should never own a gun again, some should. Violence, or, number of convictions should be taken into account.


Well since the chances are pretty good you are a felon which of your rights should you have to give up ?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes there is haven’t you ever read it ?
> Reread the last right in the bill of right.


1st you meant the next to last and it 2nd does not say what you think it says:
The right of citizens of the United States, 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.*


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No look at the 9th and 10th.

The short explanation is all rights rest in the people.
AND
There are a lot more rights than those listed.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

haypoint said:


> I don't like the idea of uncaptured invaders voting, either.


uncaptured invaders - I love it! That will be my term of choice now.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> No, if you've committed a felony, you've given up your rights.


I'm sure many believe that and have that opinion, but it isn't true.
They are taken, not given up.
And while it's true that a citizen can "give up" a constitutional right at any time (own a gun -2nd amd./permission to search-4th amd./right to remain silent-5th amd./etc.) they can also take it back at any time they wish by invoking it again.
And while there remains a debate about the "right" to vote, a citizen can exercise that or not at will too.
I don't think anyone can seriously deny those are facts.

One more fact is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the only way a natural born citizen can "give up" his citizenship is by renouncing it both verbally in front of witnesses and in writing. It can never be taken away by the gov't..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

..........Unless you're a felon, and even then they still have the gall to say you're still an American citizen, except you're missing 1 or 2 that the rest of America still has.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mnn2501 said:


> 1st you meant the next to last and it 2nd does not say what you think it says:
> The right of citizens of the United States, 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.*


The significant element I am seeing is that we have two different amendments which refer to voting as a right. A right, by definition, is above the reach of the political process barring a constitutional amendment. So we are left with two choices: Either the Constitution is wrong or some politicians in all three branches of government WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION are wrong.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

> I don't like the idea of uncaptured invaders voting, either.



A little more irony for the subject of voting.........

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/state-native-american-voting-rights



> Although Native Americans were legally named citizens of the United States in 1924, the road to the franchise was not an easy one. The right of Native Americans to vote in U.S. elections was recognized in 1948 with the landmark cases _Harrison v. Laveen_ and _Trujillo v. Garley_. Even so, they were not eligible to vote in every state until 1962, when Utah became the last state to remove formal barriers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Well since the chances are pretty good you are a felon which of your rights should you have to give up ?


Well, you are totally wrong. I have never been tried or convicted of ANY crime, felony, or, otherwise.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> Again, I will stand by my position that if they are too dangerous to have all their rights, they are too dangerous to be roaming free.


Ole Man Sanders wants them to vote FROM JAIL. And while I agree with you, reality doesn't reflect that thought.


----------



## Grafton County Couple (Sep 20, 2018)

No.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Ole Man Sanders wants them to vote FROM JAIL. And while I agree with you, reality doesn't reflect that thought.


Yes, the Constitutionally correct way to look at it is, *while incarcerated* a citizen has temporarily lost his rights.
You don't get a gun, you can't speak or move about freely, you get searched without warrants, etc......and you can't vote.
Other than the 14th amendment clause that mentions other "crimes" there is no provision for denying a vote.
And THAT one had the context of the conclusion of the Civil War which is why it is written "_*rebellion*_ or other crimes".
This felon law only exists because of tradition, not because it's constitutionally sound, but as we all know traditions are a hard obstacle to overcome depending on how stubborn people are. Logic has a hard time penetrating thicker skulls.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

farmrbrown said:


> . Logic has a hard time penetrating thicker skulls.


Yes, especially when those thicker skulls think they are insulated from having the shoe on the other foot regardless of what history has to say on the issue.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Well, you are totally wrong. I have never been tried or convicted of ANY crime, felony, or, otherwise.


 But have you ever committed one ?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, the Constitutionally correct way to look at it is, *while incarcerated* a citizen has temporarily lost his rights.
> You don't get a gun, you can't speak or move about freely, you get searched without warrants, etc......and you can't vote.
> Other than the 14th amendment clause that mentions other "crimes" there is no provision for denying a vote.
> And THAT one had the context of the conclusion of the Civil War which is why it is written "_*rebellion*_ or other crimes".
> This felon law only exists because of tradition, not because it's constitutionally sound, but as we all know traditions are a hard obstacle to overcome depending on how stubborn people are. Logic has a hard time penetrating thicker skulls.


Yes. I agree. I also believe that some felons should never get out of jail, but, they do, on occasion. There should be certain crimes where certain rights are forfeit forever no matter ones status of incarceration. For example, Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery, Felony assault, etc.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> But have you ever committed one ?


A felony? I am as close to positive as I can be that the answer is no. I am 100% positive I have never committed a violent felony.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, the Constitutionally correct way to look at it is, *while incarcerated* a citizen has temporarily lost his rights.
> You don't get a gun, you can't speak or move about freely, you get searched without warrants, etc......and you can't vote.
> Other than the 14th amendment clause that mentions other "crimes" there is no provision for denying a vote.
> And THAT one had the context of the conclusion of the Civil War which is why it is written "_*rebellion*_ or other crimes".
> This felon law only exists because of tradition, not because it's constitutionally sound, but as we all know traditions are a hard obstacle to overcome depending on how stubborn people are. Logic has a hard time penetrating thicker skulls.


 You know that’s not exactly true.? 
You can’t carry a gun through security at a airport but you haven’t lost your rights to it. 
You can’t scream fire in a theater but you haven’t lost your freedom of speech. 
You can’t get out of your seat on a lot of flights but you haven’t lost your right to travel freely.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> A felony? I am as close to positive as I can be that the answer is no. I am 100% positive I have never committed a violent felony.


Ding ding ding we have a winner !
“As close as positive as I can be”
You don’t know because in the country there’s just to many laws to know. 
From what I’ve seen there are just to many laws to know. 
I think it’s time to admit there are just to many Felonise and from that there are too many felons


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Ding ding ding we have a winner !
> “As close as positive as I can be”
> You don’t know because in the country there’s just to many laws to know.
> From what I’ve seen there are just to many laws to know.
> I think it’s time to admit there are just to many Felonise and from that there are too many felons


You won't hear me saying that there are not too many laws. It is obscene. But, I am not talking about some obscure law used to keep people in their place, I am talking about common sense felony offences and what those who commit said crimes should be forced to give up.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I just had a thought. (I know, it don't happen often and it makes my head hurt)
Anyone who is a citizen and doesn't have the right to vote should be exempt from paying taxes.
Isn't there something illegal about taxation without representation?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> You won't hear me saying that there are not too many laws. It is obscene. But, I am not talking about some obscure law used to keep people in their place, I am talking about common sense felony offences and what those who commit said crimes should be forced to give up.


 Could you list your idea of common sense felony’s ?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> Yes. I agree. I also believe that some felons should never get out of jail, but, they do, on occasion. There should be certain crimes where certain rights are forfeit forever no matter ones status of incarceration. For example, Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery, Felony assault, etc.


You are allowing too dangerous of am infringement on the Constitution here. People who are too dangerous to have all their rights are too dangerous to roam free and we must hold that standard if we don't want it used to have ourrights chiseled on worse than that already have been.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you list your idea of common sense felony’s ?


See post #197. Not all inclusive, but, that is the type of felony I am speaking about.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> You are allowing too dangerous of am infringement on the Constitution here. People who are too dangerous to have all their rights are too dangerous to roam free and we must hold that standard if we don't want it used to have ourrights chiseled on worse than that already have been.


I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Our justice system is broken. Because of that some felons, who should be in jail forever, are set free. Those felons should not be allowed certain rights. I would love to make it a moot point by keeping the violent felon in prison until they are taken out in a pine box, but, that is not currently the reality.


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

The rules for felons being allowed to vote might change...until they start voting for the wrong party.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Our justice system is broken. Because of that some felons, who should be in jail forever, are set free. Those felons should not be allowed certain rights. I would love to make it a moot point by keeping the violent felon in prison until they are taken out in a pine box, but, that is not currently the reality.


I understand your point. Mine is that it is far too great of a risk to the rest of us as more and more behavior becomes felonized. Your answer to the question of whether you have ever committed a felony was pretty good. 

Answer me this: if no one lawyer can competently address the entire body of law, not even the entirety of criminal law, how in the universe are we laymen to keep it straight, especially with "ignorance of the law is no excuse" bandied about as holy writ? 

For a bonus, why are police, who are supposed to be professionals in law, generally given (varying by state) what is called "qualified immunity" which protects them from legal consequences based on the standard of what a "reasonable" layman would believe legal, as opposed to what actually is legal, but a layman gets no such break here. THAT is the .gov's answer to your invoking "common sense".

I would also point out the number of people exonerated by DNA evidence after years or decades and the Chicago policeman among others who have beaten false confessions out of people. What about people that some crooked swine of a prosecutor stacked a de facto life sentence worth of untenable charges on to get a plea on a small offense? What about people who couldn't afford a motivated lawyer and had to settle for a public defender who didn't give 3/16 of a damn and herded them into a plea for something they didn't do rather than go to the effort of fighting through that stack of bogus charges? You really want to trash the rest of a lot of lives to make sure that one doesn't get away? Thomas Jefferson, among others, called for the exact opposite with good reason. They saw the dangers and were willing to have a system that erred on the side of letting some guilty escape justice rather than have innocent unjustly punished.

Now, are you really sure you want to go down this path?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> I understand your point. Mine is that it is far too great of a risk to the rest of us as more and more behavior becomes felonized. Your answer to the question of whether you have ever committed a felony was pretty good.
> 
> Answer me this: if no one lawyer can competently address the entire body of law, not even the entirety of criminal law, how in the universe are we laymen to keep it straight, especially with "ignorance of the law is no excuse" bandied about as holy writ?
> 
> ...


I only advocate for those who commit violent crimes be denied certain rights. The kind of crimes where no one in his right mind would be surprised by it being illegal.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’m sure you mean things like murder right ?


A offence that used to result in more than a 50% wrongful incarceration rate in this state.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m sure you mean things like murder right ?
> 
> 
> A offence that used to result in more than a 50% wrongful incarceration rate in this state.


That is part of the justice system being broken I was talking about. We are to let murders vote because perhaps a very few are wrongly convicted? Once the wrongly convicted are discovered, they should have all rights/privileges restored and damages paid. Keep in mind that there is no right to vote.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

More than half is very few ?
Obviously voting IS a right 
And I still can’t see any to take any more rights than needed from anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> More than half is very few ?
> Obviously voting IS a right
> And I still can’t see any to take any more rights than needed from anyone.


It's been pointed out several times in this thread that voting is not a right, it's a priveledge, always has been. One must meet certain criteria and even fill out forms in order to excericize this priveledge.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Repeating something wrong doesn’t make it right. 
It’s also been pointed out several times that voting is a right 
Why arnt you accepting that it is. 
If you were the only person in the world you would have all the rights in the world wouldn’t you? You would be fully entitled to vote on anything you wanted to correct? Thus voting is a right. 
The ninth and 10th and admendments make it very clear that there are lots of rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and they are reserved to the several states and the people. 
In fact the fact that the Constitution does not discuss it shows what a basic right it is , on par with things like breathing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Repeating something wrong doesn’t make it right.
> It’s also been pointed out several times that voting is a right
> Why arnt you accepting that it is.
> If you were the only person in the world you would have all the rights in the world wouldn’t you? You would be fully entitled to vote on anything you wanted to correct? Thus voting is a right.
> ...


As you state voting privileges are reserved to the states. It is not a right, never has been, hence several amendments have been passed to prevent discrimination by the states for various reasons, sex, race, religion, (I think). Ultimately each state sets its own criteria for who and who cannot vote. No where is anyone promised a right to vote just because they happen to meet some of the requirements. You are also quite correct in your other comment.... "Repeating something wrong does not make it correct.".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As you state voting privileges are reserved to the states. It is not a right, never has been, hence several amendments have been passed to prevent discrimination by the states for various reasons, sex, race, religion, (I think). Ultimately each state sets its own criteria for who and who cannot vote. No where is anyone promised a right to vote just because they happen to meet some of the requirements. You are also quite correct in your other comment.... "Repeating something wrong does not make it correct.".


Don’t you see those amendments are put in place to protect peoples right to vote not to deny it exists. 

I have never seen anything in the constitution that says the right to vote is vested in the state. Like certain other rights the state may put certain regulations concerning it into affect .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

One of the wonderful things about our constitution is that it limits powers of the governments while celebrating and affirming the rights the individual .
The constitution basically says that we are as free as we Can br and that means we have as many rights as it’s possible for us to have .


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> You know that’s not exactly true.?
> You can’t carry a gun through security at a airport but you haven’t lost your rights to it.
> You can’t scream fire in a theater but you haven’t lost your freedom of speech.
> You can’t get out of your seat on a lot of flights but you haven’t lost your right to travel freely.


I was only referring to what happens when you go to jail.
For a certain period of time you are detained, held against your will, imprisoned and while there, lose most of your rights until your sentence is complete.
The examples you gave are the result of someone voluntarily entering a place and agreeing to the terms for the sake of entertainment, convenience of travel, etc.

Air travel ain't what it used to be, but you don't get a movie or even a bag of peanuts when you're in lock down, lol.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> I just had a thought. (I know, it don't happen often and it makes my head hurt)
> Anyone who is a citizen and doesn't have the right to vote should be exempt from paying taxes.
> Isn't there something illegal about taxation without representation?


From page 1.....


farmrbrown said:


> I forgot to add another point in logic vs. emotion.
> 
> "Taxation without representation" was the battle cry in this country's Revolutionary War.
> You won't find that specifically mentioned in the Constitution although Article I is full of relevant examples.
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Don’t you see those amendments are put in place to protect peoples right to vote not to deny it exists.
> 
> I have never seen anything in the constitution that says the right to vote is vested in the state. Like certain other rights the state may put certain regulations concerning it into affect .


It's in there, Article I section 4, IIRC.
But your 1st sentence is true...........



Yvonne's hubby said:


> As you state voting privileges are reserved to the states. It is not a right, never has been, hence several amendments have been passed to prevent discrimination by the states for various reasons, sex, race, religion, (I think). Ultimately each state sets its own criteria for who and who cannot vote. No where is anyone promised a right to vote just because they happen to meet some of the requirements. You are also quite correct in your other comment.... "Repeating something wrong does not make it correct.".


............sex, race and age are the amendments passed to prevent voting discrimination.
But if it were totally true, that it's just a "privilege" then those amendments would be unconstitutional, right?
A state could go back to the 1780's and say only white meant owning property can vote, IOW the "privileged".
BTW, I'm a white male who owns property............so much for being privileged.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Repeating something wrong doesn’t make it right.
> It’s also been pointed out several times that voting is a right
> *Why arnt you accepting that it is*.


Because of your first sentence.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> It's in there, Article I section 4, IIRC.
> But your 1st sentence is true...........
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, those amendments were duly ratified making them a valid part of our constitution. In fact many states did only allow "priveledged" male, white males to vote.... None of the amendments have said all citizens have the right to vote. That's the catch. Most citizens can meet the voting requirements in most states. If voting was an unalienable right it would be available to all, including felons, minors, non citizens, unregistered voters etc. it's not, never has been but many do enjoy the franchise today that did not or would not without those amendments.

Article one section four: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, *shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; *but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
(Bolding mine) 
This is proof the states are empowered to decide how when and where elections are held within that state.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, those amendments were duly ratified making them a valid part of our constitution. In fact many states did only allow "priveledged" male, white males to vote.... None of the amendments have said all citizens have the right to vote. That's the catch. Most citizens can meet the voting requirements in most states. If voting was an unalienable right it would be available to all, including felons, minors, non citizens, unregistered voters etc. it's not, never has been but many do enjoy the franchise today that did not or would not without those amendments.


 Apply that same standard to guns and you will see your mistake. 
For the most part Admendments are about protecting rights 
Sure there are some rules about voting since we are a republic not a mob.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> From page 1.....


Guess I missed that one.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, those amendments were duly ratified making them a valid part of our constitution. In fact many states did only allow "priveledged" male, white males to vote.... None of the amendments have said all citizens have the right to vote. That's the catch. Most citizens can meet the voting requirements in most states. If voting was an unalienable right it would be available to all, including felons, minors, non citizens, unregistered voters etc. it's not, never has been but many do enjoy the franchise today that did not or would not without those amendments.
> 
> Article one section four: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, *shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; *but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
> (Bolding mine)
> This is proof the states are empowered to decide how when and where elections are held within that state.


Yes YH, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Now that we've got THAT out of the way there's just one more thing that you can say to be 100% correct.

"The states DO make voting a 'right.'"

And since voting IS a state right, the feds have the authority to make sure they a fair and equal.......according to the Constitution.

It's referred to as a right in several amendments and by the SCOTUS in several rulings. If you still say those words don't exist, ok,

I know it pains you almost as much as another to admit a firm position is based on a false premise and it's ok.
If there's one thing I've learned on HT, it's that some people will never learn another thing in their life.........

And that sentence is worse than a felon's. It's a life sentence that's reversible but self imposed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

double post


----------



## BassmanJR (Aug 24, 2018)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> 
> I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


We already have a high percentage of people who don’t contribute much voting themselves more and more benefits. What difference does it make if we put more burden in the cart for the few that pull it? Sure why not.


----------



## drgnfly447 (Dec 6, 2018)

Fishindude said:


> Nope.
> If they're dumb enough to commit and get caught at a felony, their vote isn't going to do anything positive for society.


I'm sorry you feel this way. Are you aware of the many that have been wrongfully convicted? Now the felony conviction will follow them the rest of their lives. I say give them back the right to vote.


----------



## cornbread (Jul 4, 2005)

No! It's part of their penalty for committing the crime.


----------



## Yamez (Sep 2, 2017)

I've got 9 felony convictions, and 27 misdemeanor convictions.

I don't care to vote...

This is why I live in the hills and work guerilla farms


----------



## Yamez (Sep 2, 2017)

Yamez said:


> I've got 9 felony convictions, and 27 misdemeanor convictions.
> 
> I don't care to vote...
> 
> This is why I live in the hills and work guerilla farms


Another point, I do believe I can gain the right to vote back. It's a matter of A. Being out of prison B. Being done with parole/probation and C. All fines and fees paid off.

Another one, I can gain the right to own a gun. It's a little more complicated though. The three conditions above must be met. And I would also have to go in front of the original sentencing judges to ask for the records to be expunged. It also, in Washington, needs to be 5 years after the latest Class C felony, 7 years after the latest Class B felony, and I don't think it is possible if you've been convicted of a class A felony.


----------



## GrannySue_in_IL (Dec 31, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has paid their debt to society, even if it was a felony, do you support their being eligible to vote?
> 
> I do, as long as the terms of their sentence have been met. What say you?


You know, I really thought about that when it came up in Florida... I considered for a while on the idea for those who were not violent felonies, but then I realized that the crimes would be extortion, mail fraud, theft (of money, items or information) and realized that there was a REASON that this was important enough to put into the Constitution.

So, my answer would be no. I can't support the idea.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Apply that same standard to guns and you will see *your mistake*.


The amendment pertaining to guns clearly state it's a "right of the people" and it "shall not be infringed".

You've yet to show anything that clearly says that about voting.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The amendment pertaining to guns clearly state it's a "right of the people" and it "shall not be infringed".
> 
> You've yet to show anything that clearly says that about voting.


That's because it isn't there. Voting at the time was a priveledge enjoyed only by a select few. The founders left it to the states to determine who would and would not enjoy this priveledge. Seems like only white men of property made the cut in those days. It has never been one of those "God given unalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It has never been one of those "God given unalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution.


Exactly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I know *it pains you almost as much as another to admit* a firm position is based on a false premise and it's ok.


Many things are based on lies.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's because it isn't there. Voting at the time was a priveledge enjoyed only by a select few. The founders left it to the states to determine who would and would not enjoy this priveledge. Seems like only white men of property made the cut in those days. It has never been one of those "God given unalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution.


 You are reading the constitution backwards it’s not about granting privilege it’s about protecting rights. 
Just as blacks were not recognized as people with rights at the time their rights are still recognized by the constitution. 
Or was there some place where a new constitution and rights were created for them after their personhood was recognized ?
Simply put the constitution doesn’t create rights.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's because it isn't there. Voting at the time was a priveledge enjoyed only by a select few. The founders left it to the states to determine who would and would not enjoy this priveledge. Seems like only white men of property made the cut in those days. It has never been one of those "God given unalienable rights" mentioned in the constitution.


How do you deal with these two issues?

1. The requirement to be a property owner was a barrier people could cross without any arbitrary official permission as opposed to restoring rights to people who are supposedly already square with the world.

2. Although voting was not recognized along with assorted clearly inviolate rights, we have at least two later amendments referring to voting as a right, not a conditional privilege, which, by definition makes it beyond the purview of the political process, routine disregard of the Constitution notwithstanding.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

I like the fact that it varies from state to state and from felony class to felony class. I have a relative who committed some pretty bad felonies as an 18 year old. Many decades later, he is a very different person from the one who committed those crimes. He now lives in a state that has decided that once your debt to society is paid, you can once again vote. He gained a great degree of self respect moving down there. He isn't reminded daily of the bad things he did as a "kid" (as if he can ever really forget anyway). He can participate in our system, and his voice is valuable to me, having been on a side of the system that I hope to never find myself. Our voting system isn't only for those who don't get caught or for those who never do anything wrong (I don't even know anyone who fits that description). I imagine you'd all be up in arms if they decided to take away the priviledge to vote based on traffic tickets, which they could do if they so chose.


----------



## Ronald Nelson (Jun 1, 2018)

OK I am a Felon and I thought that all my rights were taken from me to find out they were not ( I still have the right to Vote and I can be picked for jury Trial ) I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was visiting my brother and did not have a clue he sold drugs he lived 1500 miles from me he was pulled over and i was in the car and was arrested with my brother he told them I had nothing to do with the drugs and did not know that they were in the car it's all about money for the state


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Ronald Nelson said:


> OK I am a Felon and I thought that all my rights were taken from me to find out they were not ( I still have the right to Vote and I can be picked for jury Trial ) I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was visiting my brother and did not have a clue he sold drugs he lived 1500 miles from me he was pulled over and i was in the car and was arrested with my brother he told them I had nothing to do with the drugs and did not know that they were in the car it's all about money for the state


Yet you still have multitudes of "judges" who would say that you should properly be banished from civilized society forever as they uphold people guilty of serious and voluminous crimes who have either not been caught or have managed to use monetary capital or political capital to evade proper punishment.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Yet you still have multitudes of "judges" who would say that you should properly be banished from civilized society forever as they uphold people guilty of serious and voluminous crimes who have either not been caught or have managed to use monetary capital or political capital to evade proper punishment.


A lot of those people that some folks think are guilty aren't. We have a pretty good justice system in this country. Perfect? Nope, but I've not seen a better one.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The amendment pertaining to guns clearly state it's a "right of the people" and it "shall not be infringed".
> 
> You've yet to show anything that clearly says that about voting.


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.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A lot of those people that some folks think are guilty aren't. We have a pretty good justice system in this country. Perfect? Nope, but I've not seen a better one.


 How many other ones have you seen ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> How many other ones have you seen ?


473 how about you? Found one yet better than ours?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SRSLADE said:


> 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.


Righteo... Race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Didn't say anything about being denied for a host of other reasons. It's a state issue, to be decided by state legislatures.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No
But I’ve only been well exposed to 3
How did you come in contact with so many justice systems ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Righteo... Race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Didn't say anything about being denied for a host of other reasons.


 But it does say right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Where is the right to breath , the right to pee, the right o scratch your pits , the right to amass wealth , the right to choose a spouse, the right to reproduce spelled out ?
The framers of our constitution realized that there are many many rights and you could never enumerate them all so they protected them all automatically and specifically protected a few that had been abused recently by the government. 
You know just to clarify


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> But it does say right.


True, it says right, a right that is determined by your state. Vastly different than an inalienable right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Where is the right to breath , the right to pee, the right o scratch your pits , the right to amass wealth , the right to choose a spouse, the right to reproduce spelled out ?
> The framers of our constitution realized that there are many many rights and you could never enumerate them all so they protected them all automatically and specifically protected a few that had been abused recently by the government.
> You know just to clarify


Those had been basic rights of mankind for centuries, and were generally understood to be such. The right to vote had never been one such right. When the constitution was written only free, white, males who owned property were granted that "right".


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Righteo... Race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Didn't say anything about being denied for a host of other reasons. It's a state issue, to be decided by state legislatures.


You don't see the words by the United states?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SRSLADE said:


> You don't see the words by the United states?


Yup, I not only saw them but understand them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> No
> But I’ve only been well exposed to 3
> How did you come in contact with so many justice systems ?


I was taught to read at an early age.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I can only laugh but it hurts.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Righteo... Race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Didn't say anything about being denied for a host of other reasons. It's a state issue, to be decided by state legislatures.


That is a correct quote of the 14th.
But as many have stated their views on felons and the "debt" they owe to society as the reason in supporting their indefinite sentence. How many consider that as another form of 'servitude'?
No?
The only definition possible is being chained in a cotton field and nothing else qualifies?
Many types of servitude throughout history resoled in slavery. Being captured and sold was one of the worst, but indentured servants were common as well. Some "voluntarily" entered into that contract and worked off their debt, hopefully, but that was continent on how honest their masters were.
Once that amendment passed and the context of the clause "rebellion and other crimes" expanded to the present, the restriction that servitude only applied to that generation of Africans becomes a flawed interpretation.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, it says right, a right that is determined by your state. Vastly different than an inalienable right.


Very true, and voting is referred to many times in past legal cases as a "privilege".
It also has been agreed that it is a privilege granted to citizens of this country many, many times.............




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Those had been basic rights of mankind for centuries, and were generally understood to be such. The right to vote had never been one such right. When the constitution was written only free, white, males who owned property were granted that "right".


............or better yet, granted that privilege.


BTW, the U.S. gov't often refers to voting as an important "right" too.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/elections-voting/


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Righteo... Race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Didn't say anything about being denied for a host of other reasons. It's a state issue, to be decided by state legislatures.


Yrs, buy is refers to voting as a right. If it is in fact a right, then the argument is settled right there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> 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.


That still isn't an unconditional right granted to everyone.
That merely names 3 reasons they can't be prevented from voting.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That still isn't an unconditional right granted to everyone.
> That merely names 3 reasons they can't be prevented from voting.


Exactly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Yrs, buy is refers to voting as a right. If it is in fact a right, then the argument is settled right there.


Nope. Some rights aren't the same as inalienable rights. Like driving.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope. Some rights aren't the same as inalienable rights. Like driving.


No argument there, but the line isn't always clear and isn't always stationary as history teaches us.
It's fine to insist on keeping those things as a privilege instead of a right........until it's YOUR "privilege" that's taken away.
Like they say, be careful what you ask for.........
As unlikely as it sounds, when you embrace that stance you should consider the possibility that one day a vote may be taken and decided to revoke those privileges to the white male population.
Can't happen, you say?
Gonna invoke the 14th at that time and say it was meant to protect _your_ "rights"? After all it says right there it can't be racially denied, right?
Yet the gov't is really good at finding ways to circumvent what is written and how it's actually practiced in real life.
All they would have to do is invent another law that makes being a white male a "crime" and voila! You're now a felon with no "privileges" like anyone else the gov't decides to punish.
That's why I asked you to consider how narrow a definition you wanted to make for "servitude".
That _*is*_ one of the exceptions in the 14th, but your only focus is on the clause that lists 'other crimes'.
What happens when you join that club and they tell you the 16th gives them the right to your income tax yet you are now one of the non privileged with no right to vote on any more changes?
Are you still gonna stand and salute and say God Bless America?

I may never see that day, but I'd love to know your feelings on it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> No argument there, but the line isn't always clear and isn't always stationary as history teaches us.
> It's fine to insist on keeping those things as a privilege instead of a right........until it's YOUR "privilege" that's taken away.
> Like they say, be careful what you ask for.........
> As unlikely as it sounds, when you embrace that stance you should consider the possibility that one day a vote may be taken and decided to revoke those privileges to the white male population.
> ...


i have stated my position on voting numerous times here. I guess you have missed it. I would love to see voting restricted to
1. American citizens.
2. Property holders.
3. Persons having served a minimum of 4 years in the military. Either still serving or honorably discharged.
4. Persons having attained 30 years of age.
5. Persons who pass a civics/American history exam. (Written and in English)

Those are just a few qualifiers, off the top of my head. Of course to do so would exempt me from voting, but I honestly beleive the future of our country is more important than my voting "right".

ETA: history is very clear on voting rights btw. Had voting ever been one of the unalienable rights those several amendments granting the priveledge to several groups would not exist.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> 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.


If you have a link to a SCOTUS ruling that changes this one, I'd like to read it. 

The SCOTUS has ruled in US V. Reese 1876 that the 15th did not convey the right to vote. It just eliminated one person being not allowed to vote because of race, color or condition of servitude when others were ALLOWED to vote.

"In _United States v. Reese_ (1876),[38] the first U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the amendment narrowly, upholding ostensibly race-neutral limitations on suffrage including poll taxes, literacy tests, and a grandfather clause that exempted citizens from other voting requirements if their grandfathers had been registeredvoters, a condition only white men could generally meet.[39][40] The Court also stated that the amendment does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation".[41] The Court wrote........"


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow that’s messed up. 
There is no way veterans should be allowed to vote. 
The government shouldn’t be voted in by those it has brainwashed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Funny how the terms of the discussion is changing. 
First it was voting wasn’t a right. Now it’s voting isn’t a inalienable right. 
I don’t remember anybody say it was. 
It should be but obviously it’s not.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i have stated my position on voting numerous times here. I guess you have missed it. I would love to see voting restricted to
> 1. American citizens.
> 2. Property holders.
> 3. Persons having served a minimum of 4 years in the military. Either still serving or honorably discharged.
> ...



You're correct, I did miss that, or forgotten the other details beyond property owners.
That is a well thought out and consistent view which places the "right to vote" in a category that would be coveted and well earned. I wouldn't make the cut either without the military service.

Whether that pool of voters would elect a better quality of office holders is a noble goal that I assume was the intention.(?)
Aside from the obvious objections about equality or fairness of excluding a large number of people it might also coincidentally include the majority of the tax paying public which would soften the blow to the balance between rights and responsibilities.
(IOW, To whom much is given, much is required.)
The other consideration is jury duty since that's usually from the pool of registered voters. Not only would there be fewer in rotation, it adds another layer of separation in the right to be judged by one's "peers".

The true test would be if it resulted in far better legislative actions that *everyone* was happy with, otherwise it would be doomed to failure. Having a large class of people being ruled by another, even the smallest perception of injustice would fester like an infected splinter over time. You either remove it or risk a painful amputation later.

I do appreciate your candor in expressing your viewpoint though, and respect it, regardless of my opinion about it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If you have a link to a SCOTUS ruling that changes this one, I'd like to read it.
> 
> The SCOTUS has ruled in US V. Reese 1876 that the 15th did not convey the right to vote. It just eliminated one person being not allowed to vote because of race, color or condition of servitude when others were ALLOWED to vote.
> 
> "In _United States v. Reese_ (1876),[38] the first U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the amendment narrowly, upholding ostensibly race-neutral limitations on suffrage including poll taxes, literacy tests, and a grandfather clause that exempted citizens from other voting requirements if their grandfathers had been registeredvoters, a condition only white men could generally meet.[39][40] The Court also stated that the amendment does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation".[41] The Court wrote........"


Here's one from SCOTUS......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinn_v._United_States

And another, the 24th amendment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Funny how the terms of the discussion is changing.
> First it was voting wasn’t a right. Now it’s voting isn’t a inalienable right.
> I don’t remember anybody say it was.
> It should be but obviously it’s not.


I noticed that but figured it didn't matter too much to those opinion holders.
It does matter in principle to how honestly you view another as an equal, when it comes to acknowledging something as a "right". But the temptation for humans to hold some kind of power over another is a strong one, for sure.

https://www.docsoffreedom.org/student/readings/equal-and-inalienable-rights
There's a 5 question quiz at the end of this link.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> You're correct, I did miss that, or forgotten the other details beyond property owners.
> That is a well thought out and consistent view which places the "right to vote" in a category that would be coveted and well earned. I wouldn't make the cut either without the military service.
> 
> Whether that pool of voters would elect a better quality of office holders is a noble goal that I assume was the intention.(?)
> ...


The idea behind it is to eliminate those who have no skin in the game, those who see the safety net as a hammock and those not bright enough to feed themselves. As to jury selection we could always switch over and draw from the drivers license pool, or other sources.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Funny how the terms of the discussion is changing.
> First it was voting wasn’t a right. Now it’s voting isn’t a inalienable right.
> I don’t remember anybody say it was.
> It should be but obviously it’s not.


Then you understand there is a difference. An inalienable right is a separate category and voting isn't one of them. It fits the description of priveledge, and therefore can be denied to convicted felons.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

Uhhh, what party are these felons?

geo


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

geo in mi said:


> Uhhh, what party are these felons?
> 
> geo


Too much party in many cases!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The Felon Party!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then you understand there is a difference. An inalienable right is a separate category and voting isn't one of them. It fits the description of priveledge, and therefore can be denied to convicted felons.


Yep.
And true to that doctrine, I have the unalienable right to deny the authority over me, who denies me choice in deciding the terms of that authority.
As previously defined an unalienable right can never be taken away except by force.
The right to bear arms was a "privilege" granted by the Constitution, not an inalienable right granted by God or Nature.
THOSE you have to decide for yourself whether to fight to keep them or die trying, since "life" is one of the few inalienable rights.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> The idea behind it is to eliminate those who have no skin in the game, those who see the safety net as a hammock and those not bright enough to feed themselves. As to jury selection we could always switch over and draw from the drivers license pool, or other sources.


I got that. Most societies strive to create different classes of citizens rather than all being treated as equal.
Those two separate philosophies are considered dangerous to each other.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Here's one from SCOTUS......
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinn_v._United_States
> 
> And another, the 24th amendment.


Thank you. Hadn't read that one.

But I cannot find anything in this ruling that changes US v Reese where the SCOTUS says the 15th "...amendment does not confer the right of suffrage.... ". The Reese ruling is very direct and clear about the 15th not granting the right to vote in a Federal election. And if a later case doesn't change that interpretation, it must stand as the current interpretation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then you understand there is a difference. An inalienable right is a separate category and voting isn't one of them. It fits the description of priveledge, and therefore can be denied to convicted felons.


Please don’t make up lies about about me ,I take great exception to people telling other people what I think. 
Could you list a few inalienable rights and a few alienable rights ?
You see I don’t understand the differences.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Inalienable rights include things like self defense, along with the toys required to do so. That one is spelled out for you along with the right to worship the God of your choice.
Others would be the right to own property both real and personal. The right to have children, to plant crops, store and harvest them, consume or sell them. The right to trade and enter into contacts etc.

Alienable rights are things requiring permits, licenses or other "permission" from the government. Driving on public hi ways, voting, hunting and fishing on public property, selling certain products etc.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But most of the things you called inalienable can require permits licenses, or permission. 
What makes you think they are inalienable?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Thank you. Hadn't read that one.
> 
> But I cannot find anything in this ruling that changes US v Reese where the SCOTUS says the 15th "...amendment does not confer the right of suffrage.... ". The Reese ruling is very direct and clear about the 15th not granting the right to vote in a Federal election. And if a later case doesn't change that interpretation, it must stand as the current interpretation.


Yes, that's correct.
According to Article I section 4, the 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, etc. the "right" is one that can be given or taken by the state legislatures. Once they make their rules on who gets to vote, then the feds have a little authority to supervise the states so they don't discriminate in violation of those amendments.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> But most of the things you called inalienable can require permits licenses, or permission.
> What makes you think they are inalienable?


True, our government has been overstepping their boundaries and violating our unalienable rights for quite some time. Doesn't mean it's right. My point is that the right to vote was never in that group. Voting was reserved as a priveledge right from the get go. None of our amendments have changed that. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled otherwise. At least I've not heard of anything.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Inalienable rights include things like self defense, along with the toys required to do so. That one is spelled out for you along with the right to worship the God of your choice.
> Others would be the right to own property both real and personal. The right to have children, to plant crops, store and harvest them, consume or sell them. The right to trade and enter into contacts etc.
> 
> Alienable rights are things requiring permits, licenses or other "permission" from the government. Driving on public hi ways, voting, hunting and fishing on public property, selling certain products etc.





AmericanStand said:


> But most of the things you called inalienable can require permits licenses, or permission.
> What makes you think they are inalienable?



He has a little trouble sometimes, like a blind spot in one eye, but he tries hard and gets it mostly right, most of the time..........
The precise way to phrase it is, the Constitution _*recognizes and agrees to protect*_ certain inalienable rights.
The inalienable rights are always there, but not all governments recognize them or agree to go along with them.
But they are there for anyone at anytime, it just depends how far you're willing to go to use them.

I'll give a few examples.
YH cited the right to self defense and he's correct.
My life was a gift from God and as far as I'm concerned only He has the right to take it from me.
Until that day comes, I'll do what comes natural and fight off whatever enemies come to the door of my home to harm us.
That pretty much covers the first two amendments in my book, they're probably my favorite too. 

There are a few rare SCOTUS cases that have allowed restrictions and sometimes overturned later, but no where can I find where they have the authority to completely take them away from anyone, death is the only exception. 
Yet in 1954, they started infringing on kids talking to their Creator during school hours.
Now, that's been refined, and it's a good idea to tell kids that God isn't the tooth fairy. Study for your exam and ya won't HAVE to a beg for a "C" that morning. 
In 1968, the feds passed a law giving them the right to abolish the CLEARLY written 2nd Amendment.........but just for a few cases. That way they don't get *everyone * riled up at what they did.
50 years later, you can find plenty of people who actually applaud the idea and think it's just peachy to start gutting one of the most widely accepted rights on this planet.
"Hold on!", you say. "There are LOTS of countries that don't grant that right to their people!."

Yep.
But they still have it, whether they ever use it or not.
I guarantee you if push came to shove, I'd invoke my rights, permission granted or not.

Same with the right to free speech.
Sure, you can slap me for what I've said. Judges are occasionally know to put you in jail if they don't like what you said......but it still went from your mouth to their ears......and there wasn't a darn thing they could do about it.
That's an example of unalienable rights. You have them as long as you're breathing.

Now I'm going to give one and tell on myself at the same time.
This is going to thrill at least one particular member to no end, because he pays attentions to my stories so closely.
He thinks I'm full of BS and they're 100% fiction.........mainly cuz I don't give everything away on the first date. Ya gotta save the good stuff til the time is right.

I've voted and served on a jury in the past 10 years, but I'm a felon. Not just any felon, but a Florida felon where they had a lifetime ban until November of 2018.

How?
When I moved to NC, I registered to vote like anyone else. I voted at least once down there after I got out. They didn't catch it until about 3 years ago when I went back to renew my residency and D/L.
THEN they sent me the stern notice that I was a bad boy and revoked my "privileges" - and probably told every other state the new gossip in case I pulled that again.

Why did I do that?
It's my right and I won't give it up, ya gotta come git it.
I've paid taxes every year since I was 16 (about 40 years) and although I'm not about to buy a pistol and drive around, get caught and do serious time, I'll darn well act like I'm a full blooded American citizen with or without some politician's permission.
That was given to me as a birthright and they can take it when I'm cold and dead.

So what now?
They won right?
They took my gun, my voter card, labeled me "less than a citizen" and all without any real authority that can stand up to reason or the written promises of this country's final authority.
I'll let them think that for now. If an opponent thinks you're beaten, they lose interest and go elsewhere.
But I agree with YH that what I earn or buy with honest work is mine to divvy out. 
Only _citizens_ are obligated by the 16th to pay income taxes. I did ........ until last year. Two can play that game.
I invoked another inalienable right. If they want to try and take more than I'm willing to give, try me and find out.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, our government has been overstepping their boundaries and violating our unalienable rights for quite some time. Doesn't mean it's right. My point is that the right to vote was never in that group. Voting was reserved as a priveledge right from the get go. None of our amendments have changed that. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled otherwise. At least I've not heard of anything.


I think you are wrong. 
I think our rights were ment to be wide and far ranging. 
I think we have so many rights the constitution couldn’t list them. 
I think they knew we had rights they couldn’t think of yet. 
So they decided to protect all of them. 
Even rights they knew were being infringed on at the time. 
The idea was the maximum freedom possible. 
And ever since people have been coming up with ideas about how other people’s freedoms should be limited.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

This discussion is reminding me of the way a certain priest dealt with the temptation of Christ by Satan. He put heavy emphasis on the fact that even Satan will use scripture (correctly or incorrectly interpreted) to prove a point (with no intention of actually honoring it). I see the same thing being done with the Constitution by those who would seek to deprive us of our rights and our republic.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow that’s messed up.
> There is no way veterans should be allowed to vote.
> The government shouldn’t be voted in by those it has brainwashed.


That means anyone who attended any public school, ever, should not vote.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are wrong.
> I think our rights were ment to be wide and far ranging.
> I think we have so many rights the constitution couldn’t list them.
> I think they knew we had rights they couldn’t think of yet.
> ...


You sir, have earned the right to be called an "American citizen".
Congratulations, some people get it, some don't.

I will agree with FarmerGa though, your anti-veteran stance is unAmerican.
But as a defender of the 1st Amendment, I support your "right" to say it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> This discussion is reminding me of the way a certain priest dealt with the temptation of Christ by Satan. He put heavy emphasis on the fact that even Satan will use scripture (correctly or incorrectly interpreted) to prove a point (with no intention of actually honoring it). I see the same thing being done with the Constitution by those who would seek to deprive us of our rights and our republic.


Yep.
And Jesus replied, "Get behind me, satan."
Thereby rejecting any power over Him.
Satan had no authority to make Jesus any offers. The world wasn't his to offer.
I feel the same way about the U.S. gov't.
It ain't theirs to give or take away.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> That means anyone who attended any public school, ever, should not vote.


Thats why school districts should not be ran by the state or federal government nor even a county but simply a school district administered by a group of local citizens. 
Sadly the schools I attended that had the least indoctrination in them are administered by the U.S. Army


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are wrong.
> I think our rights were ment to be wide and far ranging.
> I think we have so many rights the constitution couldn’t list them.
> I think they knew we had rights they couldn’t think of yet.
> ...


Well, since I'm in agreement with you on each item above.... I reckon we are both wrong!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And a good example of another inalienable right........the "right" to be wrong!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> And a good example of another inalienable right........the "right" to be wrong!


I see that one excersized a lot!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, since I'm in agreement with you on each item above.... I reckon we are both wrong!


Kinda scary huh ?


----------

