It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kuroodo
Did you know that this law, that felons can't vote, was mainly to target blacks?
Blacks were easily given Felon charges for the lightest of crime. All so that they wouldn't be able to vote!
Also no harm in a Felon voting. It's not like the candidates are going to legalize crime or soemthing
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I personally think that even people serving time should have the right to vote.
Criminals are still citizens who are subjected to the policies enacted by elected officials... in a true democracy, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
Felons CHOSE to disobey laws.
They CHOSE to not be part of the society's legal framework for civil relations between individuals.
And, with voting, you see nothing wrong with them having a say in a legal system they chose to ignore ?
If you really feel like that, shouldn't the ban extend to anyone who's ever willfully broken a law? That would apply to drug use, speeding, jaywalking, joyriding, and every other crime. After all, these people also chose to ignore the legal system.
Read again.
I said FELONS.
Jaywalking, to use your example, is not a felony, nor should it be.
Unless you equate jaywalking with "joyriding", e.g. stealing a car.
I was referring to the logic in your last sentence, where you said "And, with voting, you see nothing wrong with them having a say in a legal system they chose to ignore?"
My point is that people ignore the legal system all of the time. So if it's really ok to stop people from being able to vote because they chose to ignore the legal system, that logic should apply to others who choose to ignore the legal system too.
I see.
So, the penalty should be the same for all crimes ?
You are making moral equivalence again.
True logic and reason point to the principle that the punishment (ex: voting denial) must fit the crime (ex:"joyriding")
The penalty should be decided by the criminal justice system. That's literally why it exists in the first place. So once a person has finished serving that penalty, they should have their rights restored, including voting.
originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: enlightenedservant
You are forgetting that previous governors had indicated that such mass changes would require a change to the Virginia constitution.
McAuliffe just ignored it,like Obama ignores the US Constitution in the "executive amnesty" actions, now at the Supreme Court for debate; every single lower court ruled against Obama.
So, save the speech about constitution and rule of law. "D" s will ignore it to fit their narrative.
Incidentally, this debate is NOT about anyone's rights; it's about getting extra votes for Hillary.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: enlightenedservant
You are forgetting that previous governors had indicated that such mass changes would require a change to the Virginia constitution.
McAuliffe just ignored it,like Obama ignores the US Constitution in the "executive amnesty" actions, now at the Supreme Court for debate; every single lower court ruled against Obama.
So, save the speech about constitution and rule of law. "D" s will ignore it to fit their narrative.
Incidentally, this debate is NOT about anyone's rights; it's about getting extra votes for Hillary.
It does not matter. And really are you sure they will all vote D? A person who completes their sentence should have all rights restored as soon as their sentence is done. NOT doing so is Un constitutional. f they want to change it have a convention and change it.
You are forgetting that previous governors had indicated that such mass changes would require a change to the Virginia constitution.
McAuliffe just ignored it,like Obama ignores the US Constitution in the "executive amnesty" actions, now at the Supreme Court for debate; every single lower court ruled against Obama.
So, save the speech about constitution and rule of law. "D" s will ignore it to fit their narrative.
Incidentally, this debate is NOT about anyone's rights; it's about getting extra votes for Hillary.
originally posted by: M5xaz
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: enlightenedservant
You are forgetting that previous governors had indicated that such mass changes would require a change to the Virginia constitution.
McAuliffe just ignored it,like Obama ignores the US Constitution in the "executive amnesty" actions, now at the Supreme Court for debate; every single lower court ruled against Obama.
So, save the speech about constitution and rule of law. "D" s will ignore it to fit their narrative.
Incidentally, this debate is NOT about anyone's rights; it's about getting extra votes for Hillary.
It does not matter. And really are you sure they will all vote D? A person who completes their sentence should have all rights restored as soon as their sentence is done. NOT doing so is Un constitutional. f they want to change it have a convention and change it.
You are wrong
Not granting felons the vote IS constitutional and has been part of Virginia constitution since the start, AS PREVIOUS VIRGINIA GOVERNORS HAVE STATED.
You are seeking to distort historical FACTS and laws.
"D"s are the ones not respecting state or US constitutions, or seeking to "read in" things that are simply not there.
originally posted by: CB328
Does the US constitution say anything in it about blocking felons from voting? I don't remember seeing it.