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.

 

POLITICS: Senator Clinton Pushes for Voting Holiday: Also Ex Felons Should Vote

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I'm not putting the blame on others.

I am simply stating that as an american citizen, one who has committed a crime and paid their debt to society they should have all the rights that the rest of us do, including the right to vote.




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Rather then attacking the poster...



Originally posted by shots
on the won't hurt a fly bit



Originally posted by shots
(pulling out my thimble sized violion for Deep now sailing into the sunset)



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Friends of Hillary her election campaign is pushing this bill hard. It highlights a fundamental difference between the two parties. Republicans want to eliminate the possibility of voter fraud, while the Democrats seem bent on letting everybody vote eligible or not. The ex-felon voting item is just icing on the cake. So after thier election loss in which they out-raised the Republicans what are the Democrats offering? Ex Felons voting? Removing the pro abortion plank to garner votes? Opening up the balloting to anybody, citizen or not that has a pulse and can get to the polls? May be time to start looking ahead to 2012!


What the hell?

Is this an OP/ED piece Fred? Because it sure as hell reads like a Republican Party talking points memo for the issue.

The bias demonstrated in this article astounds me.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
I am simply stating that as an american citizen, one who has committed a crime and paid their debt to society they should have all the rights that the rest of us do, including the right to vote.


I am a tough on crime person and I believe this also.

Either they are a still a threat to society and should remain locked up OR they arent and should be allowed all the rights of everyone else.

They have paid their debt or havent its that simple



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
It's good to see you take a view like that Amuk.


As it has been said I'm agreeing with deep and Amuk. Those who have paid their debt can come back to the table.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Bush depended on fraud to win elections, Hillary wants ex felons to help her cause...so what?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Yes they have paid their debt but society can forgive but not forget. Going by your logic, sex offenders should not have to register under a database b/c they have paid their debt. You must not forget the crimes of the past. The prisoners have paid there debt yes, that is why they are out of prison. However they cannot be fully trusted by society. Ever! That is why felons cannot purchase fire arms, or vote or get certain jobs. They have commited high crimes. If someone hits you, you can forgive them but you will always second guess them. Not being able to vote is societies way to make sure that that person will not commit their crime again. It's a tattoo and a reminder of who they are and that they will always be a criminal because of the seriousness of their crimes. In America all men are created equal, but they do not remain equal. Felons do not remain equal because of their own actions. Americans are losing their ability to accept responsibility for their actions. We want our leaders to held accountable for what they do, but we want a slap on the wrist and then our punishment to end and everyone to act like nothing has happened. In the correct version of the proverb Bush botched: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." Americans must never forget not only what others have done, but also what they themselves have done. That is the purpose of these statutes that prevent Felons from being normal citizens again. When you commit a crime that is a felony you give up your rights. The government cannot take away what has already been given away.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Any federal law that forced states to allow ex-felons to vote would probably be unconstitutional; however I agree that someone released from prison and off parole should be able to vote, and people just given probation should never have that right taken away -- at least for nonviolent crimes.

It would probably be easier just to change the voting day to Saturday or Sunday rather than making another Federal holiday, IMHO. The "First Tuesday after the first Monday in November" rule is just law, not in the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Also these decisions should not be made by Hillary or Bush or any federal employee. It should be left to the states to decide since it is not included in the Constitution...remember that wonderful document that states that we have legislatures and not mob rule?!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Not being able to vote is societies way to make sure that that person will not commit their crime again. It's a tattoo and a reminder of who they are and that they will always be a criminal because of the seriousness of their crimes.


Screw that. They can contiually work and pay taxes to a government that they have no choice over, but they can't vote for or against them?

What a crock.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Like i said it is up to the states. Any right not given to the federal government is then passed to the states. That includes election rules and voting rights. If you don't like what is in your state then challenge it through the legislative process. If it is not in your state it is none of your business. Neither those for or against this national law have any business in it and if passed it is automatically unconstituitional



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
They can contiually work and pay taxes to a government that they have no choice over

They have a choice, they can leave the country or go to jail for it.


, but they can't vote for or against them?

I see no reason to give them that ability. They've broken the social contract, opted out of society, they don't get to get back into it. Keep in mind that they have to commite felonies to loose the ability to vote. Can you imagine what a candidate would be like that had to rely on the criminal vote? Its unthinkable.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The ignorance I see on a site devoted to denying ignorance astounds me.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
. Going by your logic, sex offenders should not have to register under a database b/c they have paid their debt.


WRONG.

Going by my logic a sex offender would remain locked up or be executed so they could not keep raping women and children.

Either they are a danger to society.

Or not.

Make up your mind.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Can you imagine what a candidate would be like that had to rely on the criminal vote? Its unthinkable.


You are right they would be supported by people like those at Enron and Haliburton



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
I'm not putting the blame on others.


You sure did put the blame on others when you stated;


He spends 2 years in a hospital where they peel the skin off his body to heal his burn wounds. They give him everything from morphine to heroine. The start of his criminal career began in a Texas army hospital.


The Army did not start his criminal career he did that on his own. What he should have done is turn to the Army for help, when he realized he had a drug problem.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Instead of a blanket law about restoring all felons rights, about about standardizing the process by which they can regain their rights. Here in Virginia you can apply to have all your rights reinstated 5 years after the completeion of all jail time and restitution payments, etc. My brother got nicked on some BS technicalities and outright perjury under oath by a state police officer and was consequently charged with a felony (eluding poliece I believe). He doesnt conern himself with owning guns or voting, those things are not high on his priority list. What does concern him and myself as well is that under state law he can never get his State Inspectors License because of the felony. The point in giving that little insight is that its not just voting and owning guns that having this mark on your life, and sometimes people do deserve to have their rights back after they pay their dues; its not right to judge people en masse like cattle, some do reform and want to get on with life.

Digression over, far-right fundamentalists may begin personal attacks now.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   



The Army did not start his criminal career he did that on his own. What he should have done is turn to the Army for help, when he realized he had a drug problem.



By him being blown up and being administered narcotics such as herione and coc aine while in the hospital being taken care of by MILITARY DOCTORS, he became an addict. How was he to control that?

I know I will probably get warned for this, but shots, stop talking, your stupidity is showing.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The common sense logic behind not allowing felons to vote:

It doesn't make sense to let criminals influence the criminal justice system.



Simply put, the 2004 election was decided by about 4 million votes (and only 100,000 in one state). If felons were allowed to vote political parties (and, sorry, we all know it would be the Democrats) would actively court these votes... as they could 'put them over the top'. What would the effect of this be? Lower standards for law enforcement and a slackening of society's response to crime. I can already see candidates promising to weaken anti-gang laws if they are elected.

In the end, governments are set up to protect people. If an aspect of government actually aids or encourages crime... that aspect is flawed, no matter the high-minded morals behind it. The rights-based argument, therefore, is weak because it ignores the issue of community endangerment.

And sorry.... that 'they paid their debt to society' line is bogus. Felons -- and to be clear, we're talking about rapists, murderers, gangbangers, pedophiles -- have a tendency to fill-out what is called the 'criminal class' in sociology. They repeat their crimes and often choose to live a life where they live off of them.

So, does it make any sense to let elections hinge on the promises candidates are willing to make to rapists and murderers?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
By him being blown up and being administered narcotics such as herione and coc aine while in the hospital being taken care of by MILITARY DOCTORS, he became an addict. How was he to control that?

I know I will probably get warned for this, but shots, stop talking, your stupidity is showing.


Again you are addressing the poster and not the post.

How is it the Army's fault, they used what were considered to be normal methods for threatment? Do you think they have crystal balls for brains? They had no way of telling if he was hooked on drugs. It was his responsiblity to tell them he had a problem, which he apparently did not. Therefore he has no one to blame but himself, yet you call me Stup....., give me a break.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join