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.

 

Virginia gives voting rights to Felons?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

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



Its the very definition of fascism. Socioeconomic pressure against a population.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

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.


In a true democracy, this should be voted on by elected representatives, not the case here.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

The US is not a democracy.

The authority of a governor varies from state to state.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Are you forgetting that our system of government has 3 completely separate branches, even at the State level? The legislative branch makes laws. The executive branch interprets and enforces the laws passed by the legislative branch, including the laws that give it extra powers. And the judicial branch is literally an entire branch of our government that deals with the rulings and punishments in the criminal justice system.

In other words, it's not just up to the "elected representatives" like you said. Judges, juries, and/or specific sentencing laws determine the penalties for people when they're convicted of something. And I believe that once that convicted person has finished serving that penalty, they should return to being a normal citizen.

And let's not forget that all State and federal executive branches also give their executive (the Governors and President) the ability to give pardons and commute judicial sentences. So even if you ignore everything else I've typed, this basic ability gives the executive branch the right to overrule both the legislative branch's sentencing laws and the judicial branch's sentencing process. So it pretty much makes this argument moot, anyway. (note: Though I do enjoy conversations like this, so please don't let that stop any replies
)

Edit: I guess it would be more accurate to say "Our federal Constitution and each State Constitution gives the chief executives of their executive branch the power to give pardons and commute sentences".
edit on 23-4-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Well....as an "I", or maybe an "L" I am 100% behind fully restoring all rights to someone upon release from prison. Its not like those rights are ours to take to begin with. What gives US the right to takes away THEIR rights? Mob rule?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz



You are forgetting that previous governors had indicated that such mass changes would require a change to the Virginia constitution.

A Governor isn't limited by the interpretations of his/her predecessors. That's why they can immediately sign executive orders to undo the executive orders of their predecessors. So this "point" doesn't matter.



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.

1. Gov McAuliffe's decision has nothing to do with President Obama. So why bring him into this? Sounds like you're deflecting.

2. According to the article in the OP, Gov McAuliffe consulted with the State's Attorney General before making his decision. Hate to break this to you, but I think I'm going to go with their actual Attorney General's legal view over yours on this issue.



So, save the speech about constitution and rule of law. "D" s will ignore it to fit their narrative.

No. I'll bring up the Constitution and the rule of law as much as I want lol.

Also, it's kind of funny that you're claiming the "D's will ignore it to fit their narrative", when you're literally trying to ignore it because it's separation of powers into 3 separate branches doesn't fit your narrative. Hypocrisy much?



Incidentally, this debate is NOT about anyone's rights; it's about getting extra votes for Hillary.

Wrong on both counts. First, this thread's title is literally "Virginia gives voting rights to Felons?" So of course I'll keep emphasizing the voting rights of felons.

And second, show me some stats that show Virginia's ex-felon population will vote for Hillary. Because right now it just sounds like fearmongering. Where are the actual stats that say these particular ex-felons will be voting for Hillary? For all you know, the majority of them could be libertarians or Repubs. Personally I'm voting for Bernie or the Green Party's nominee, so that won't help my plans at all. But as usual, I hear a lot of fearmongering and bs but no actual facts to back up accusations like the one you're making.

Though for the record, it wouldn't matter to me who they'll support. I don't like the idea of 2nd class citizenship and I believe that if your message is strong enough, people will support your cause. So instead of gleefully denying Americans the right to vote, why don't you try to convince these new voters that your perspectives are the "right" ones?
edit on 24-4-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.


Then there is no reason to even let them out of prison then at least in this country. And thats The VIRGINIAN constitution not the BIG ONE that actually counts. ALso We dont have a right to vote anyway remember? We choose our representatives and THEY vote.

Anyway since ex cons are never given a clean slate to restart over its actually kinder to deport them instead so they can find a place where they can find a job. The whole paying your debt to society is a FARCE.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Does the US constitution say anything in it about blocking felons from voting? I don't remember seeing it.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
They did that so when Hillary becomes president she'll have a place to vote.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Does the US constitution say anything in it about blocking felons from voting? I don't remember seeing it.


it dont. Up until after 1830 they could vote but lincon used this against the southern representatives so they could not stop him passing laws to prevent a state from exercising its right to secced.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
They did that so when Hillary becomes president she'll have a place to vote.


What part of 'ex-felon' do you fail to understand?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

What is the purpose of punishment? Is it revenge or rehabilitation? or a combination of both?

Let me ask you this. Do you want a permanent underclass of convicted felons? If they can't get work, housing, or assistance of any kind, and forever lose the right to vote, are there any other rights we might strip from them as well?

Should we be able to coerce them to work without pay? Should it be ok to violate them, physically or sexually, because they have less rights than we do?

Perhaps we should stop role-playing the white knight, and loudly proclaim our convictions with courage? Every criminal shall do their time and when they are "released" -- a single bullet between the eyes? Does that seem too harsh? They violated the laws of our civil society, after all.

Do you know what the problem with a permanent underclass is? Resentment. Eventually, the man (or woman) who cannot live, work or maintain a residence -- let alone VOTE their own interest -- will tire of trying to please their betters. They will see that you have something they can never have. Perhaps a home, a wife, a car or a job, and they will pull you out of your truck when you are stopped at a red light and kill you for it.

The way I see it, we have two choices: We can punish and rehabilitate, and then FREE upon release -- their debt paid, or we can take our chances in the land of the dead, whenever we pass through any area not pacified and protected our knights. Have the courage of your convictions, brother! Advocate and vote for leaders who share them. Let us rise up and demand that anyone convicted of a felony must die upon "release."

It's the only way to be sure.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Ozzy..... I think the reason why is to keep the prisons in business.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Well, yeah. Apple pie, Baseball and Private Prisons for everyone! "...In the landscape of insanity, and the blue print for all future Hells."

Go US!



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: curiouspatience

Ex-Felons get to vote in Montana. That hasn't caused any problems here. I know an ex-felon who wants to vote for Trump in Montana. Does that make it a problem to you? Just because they are a felon doesn't make a difference at all. In fact, these days we are learning that the "Popular" vote means nothing at all in many of the 50 states...

My opinion is that you should find something better to be upset about! Like the fact that no natter who gets elected, many of the same policies etc. will continue.
edit on 4/24/2016 by InFriNiTee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
double post

edit on 4/24/2016 by InFriNiTee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: curiouspatience

Give them back their 2nd Amendment rights, THEN I'll be impressed.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join