NAACP Urges U.N. to Investigate U.S. for ‘Racially Discriminatory Election Laws’

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
NAACP Urges U.N. to Investigate U.S. for ‘Racially Discriminatory Election Laws’

It seems the NAACP's biggest problem is with the fact that millions of people with felony convictions are "disenfranchised" because they are not allowed to vote !!!!

Well now we see yet another American organization that wants the U.N. to somehow decide and change U.S. laws.

Unbelievable !

I wonder what the real agenda is ?


(CNSNews.com) – Charging that millions of citizens, two-fifths of them black, have been denied the right to vote because of felony convictions, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People called on the United Nations this week to investigate America’s “racially discriminatory election laws.”

An NAACP delegation visiting Geneva hosted a panel on the “disenfranchisement” of U.S. citizens and addressed the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is in session in the Swiss city.

A delegate told the HRC that the right to vote was a cornerstone of democracy and that in the U.S. a patchwork of divergent laws and procedures have posed barriers to voting...........




“Today, nearly 5.3 million U.S. citizens have been stripped of their voting rights on a temporary or permanent basis, including more than 4.4 million citizens who are no longer incarcerated,” said Lorraine Miller, who chairs the NAACP national board’s advocacy and policy committee.

“More than two million are African American, yet African Americans make up less than 13 percent of the U.S. population,” she said.



Does it Really matter if "Felons" vote ?





posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Felons have zero rights to vote.

Being convicted of a felony is the mandatory forfeiture of that right.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I think it all depends on what the felony is. Weed possession is a felony in some states. And other victimless crimes....

I'm sure men are stripped of their vote at a higher rate too. As women are less likely to be prosecuted and convicted of a crime...even if they break the same exact law as a man. The same thing happens with minorities though, the darker your skin is the more likely to be stopped by the police, convicted, harsher sentence for committing the exact crime under similar circumstances.

For example, a MUCH higher percentage of blacks are arrested for non-violent drug offenses than whites even though blacks don't abuse drugs more frequently than whites.

Anyways, I think the NAACP gets paid to focus on non-impactful topics.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
The argument goes that a disproportionate section of the African American community has been to prison, it raises question as to racial discrimination in the enforcement and judicial system (racial profiling).

Hence they lose their right to vote, based many times on drug charges followed with mandatory minimum sentencing.

As always its not as simple as people want you to think, should the UN be involved hell no, should the US take a look at these practices (the war on drugs) definitely.

Main reason I hate these simplistic narratives the media portrays, as they obscure the real issues so nothing ever gets solved.

ETA.

I see real spoke beat me too it, what he basically said.

This is not a RIGHT or LEFT issue, its an American one, our nation has become a police state, that issue needs to be addressed.

Not the smoke screen the media trys to paint it as.
edit on 27-9-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I don't care what the issue is, the UN has no jurisdiction on American laws.
We have a Constitution, flawed though it may be.

The NAACP should not be asking the UN to intervene.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I think it all depends on what the felony is. Weed possession is a felony in some states. And other victimless crimes....

I'm sure men are stripped of their vote at a higher rate too. As women are less likely to be prosecuted and convicted of a crime...even if they break the same exact law as a man. The same thing happens with minorities though, the darker your skin is the more likely to be stopped by the police, convicted, harsher sentence for committing the exact crime under similar circumstances.

For example, a MUCH higher percentage of blacks are arrested for non-violent drug offenses than whites even though blacks don't abuse drugs more frequently than whites.

Anyways, I think the NAACP gets paid to focus on non-impactful topics.


I agree with you on most of that. But, I think it doesn't have to do with the percentage of drug abuse NOW. During the 80s crack was rampant in the black communities. Alot of them got charged with felonies then when all of that was going on. I think maybe that's where it came from, not what's going on now.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I don't care what the issue is, the UN has no jurisdiction on American laws.
We have a Constitution, flawed though it may be.

The NAACP should not be asking the UN to intervene.


as more and more rights are stepped on than what is the redress for these perceived inequalities present in the modern USA?

I agree the UN has no place in the argument what so ever, any redress is built into the constitution and declared in the Deceleration of independence it self, and needs no outside intervention.

But as more and more rights are stepped on it may be the very purpose of the US as being a blow off valve so that the redress built into the constitution is never used...

Much like a cross walk button that doesn't work, its there so you feel you did something when all you did was push a non functioning button.

edit on 27-9-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I think it all depends on what the felony is. Weed possession is a felony in some states. And other victimless crimes....
Possession of marijuana under 35 grams is a misdemeanor. Anything over that amount is a felony. Also if small bags / containers / etc are present during the contact it moves from possession to possession with intent to distribute.

State establish their own criteria in terms of how its disposed of however the Controlled Substance Act (Federal) establshes the guideline / requirements.




Originally posted by RealSpoke
I'm sure men are stripped of their vote at a higher rate too. As women are less likely to be prosecuted and convicted of a crime...even if they break the same exact law as a man. The same thing happens with minorities though, the darker your skin is the more likely to be stopped by the police, convicted, harsher sentence for committing the exact crime under similar circumstances.

Mandatory minimums and 3 strike laws should be thrown out...



Originally posted by RealSpoke
For example, a MUCH higher percentage of blacks are arrested for non-violent drug offenses than whites even though blacks don't abuse drugs more frequently than whites.

Anyways, I think the NAACP gets paid to focus on non-impactful topics.

Not to mention the United Nations has no authority nor jurisdiction in this area.


To put this into perspective -
The 8th and 14th amendment are the basis for an argument against felony disenfranchisement. However the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that their is no federal mechanism in place to challenge state laws with regards to prisoner voting. In this area the court found the lack of specificity means the states can prevent convicted felons from voting.

As an added example people are under the impression that all items contained in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states. This is actually incorrect and as an example we can look at the 7th amendment (civil trials and jury).

The 15th Amendment

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


US Supreme Court ruling -
RICHARDSON v. RAMIREZ 418 U.S. 24 (1974)
Wiki - Summation below for the ruling above)


In Richardson v. Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.

However, many critics argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment merely allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court did rule, however, in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state's felony disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact." A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.


Other source -
Cornell Law
Top 10 Pros and Cons Should felons be allowed to vote?

Anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the state.

Just some added info to help the debate process.
edit on 28-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Every morning, I wonder if I woke up in the Twilight Zone! The UN has NOTHING to do with our laws as a nation. What the hell is wrong with the NAACP??



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Felons have zero rights to vote.

Being convicted of a felony is the mandatory forfeiture of that right.



Shows how much you know....

States allowing felons to vote

State felon voting laws



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Before we claim a right is stepped on we should first understand the right itself and how its applied to the individual. As I pointed out people have this black and white view of the US Constitution which causes more issues than it resolves in most cases.

The first place to address the complaint, as you correctrly pointed out, is right here in the US. We seem to have groups of people who are going out of their way to, in my opinion, strip the constitution / make it into something its not, by going to an international stage.

In that endeavor they actually cause more damage by refusing to use the mechanisms in place to make the changes they are wanting.

Robbing peter to pay paul does not always have the desired outcome. The other flip side is if they are successful in gettin the UN to intervene who is to say it will remain at just the NAACP level? What if there is a push to restrict womens rights?

The precedent was already set with the UN interveneing on behalf of the NAACP.........



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Possession of marijuana under 35 grams is a misdemeanor. Anything over that amount is a felony. Also if small bags / containers / etc are present during the contact it moves from possession to possession with intent to distribute.


Actually it depends upon the individual laws of the state you reside in. Here in North Dakota possession of marijuana while in a vehicle is a felony, regardless of the amount you are in possession of. Even 1 marijuana cigarette will get you a Class C Felony charge if it is in a vehicle.

Personally I think the denial of voting rights upon a felony conviction should actually depend upon the crime that was committed and the severity of the crime because otherwise it does become a disenfranchisement for crimes that are actually petty or victimless.

When I lived in FL I had a friend that was going through a divorce and his wife emptied his checking account. He wrote several checks to pay bills and some bounced without his knowledge due to him being an over the road truck driver and being on the road for several weeks. Well one of the checks was for an amount over $250 and he was arrested on a felony warrant for issuing bad check. The charges were dropped eventually however if they wouldn't have been he could have lost his right to vote and own firearms over a petty crime that was actually a mistake of circumstances.

I actually think this is part of the reason we are seeing more crimes being moved up to the felony level. The more people that are charged and convicted of a felony the more there are that lose voting and second amendment rights. Its a way for TPTB to strip people of some of the most important rights to insure freedom.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


My bone of contention about felons and rights is if the have served their time then they should be allowed to have their rights. If they have not then don't release them.

In many states one can get their rights back after some time and go through the courts.
edit on 9/29/2012 by DrumJunkie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


It is not flawed at all. The people who read it are flawed. It allows all the have the same rites reguardless of of skin colors and sex. You should try reading it once. The only change it need it the word man to person



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Y should you not be able to vote if you have a felony...? You can join the Military with one, so y not vote?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Actually it depends upon the individual laws of the state you reside in. Here in North Dakota possession of marijuana while in a vehicle is a felony, regardless of the amount you are in possession of. Even 1 marijuana cigarette will get you a Class C Felony charge if it is in a vehicle.

It does to an extent since some states allow medicinal use while others only issue an infraction. However when it comes to what amount is a felony and what amound is not, that is all established by the federal government.

For Marijuana 35grams and less is misd and anything over is felony.

North Dakota drug laws on this issue were repealed and the most current reflects the federal standard - 35grams or less is a misd and anything more is a felony.

Just so people are aware there are some states who use a term called "High Court Misdameanor" (michigan is one of those states). A high court misdemeanor allows a person to be charged with a misd and if found guilty / convicted they can be sentenced up to 2 years in county jail instead of a state DOC facility.



Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Personally I think the denial of voting rights upon a felony conviction should actually depend upon the crime that was committed and the severity of the crime because otherwise it does become a disenfranchisement for crimes that are actually petty or victimless.

I somewhat agree with this... Going down this road brings us into the realm of the mandatory minimums - crack possession verse coc aine possession. I can see the argument about crime type disenfranchisement popping up..



Originally posted by Nucleardiver
When I lived in FL I had a friend that was going through a divorce and his wife emptied his.....

There are always issues when a civil action (divorce / joint bank accounts / established residency) crosses paths with a criminal action. Since those 2 areas of the law are separate it becomes problematic on both sides due to the differences in the way its viewed.



Originally posted by Nucleardiver
I actually think this is part of the reason we are seeing more crimes being moved up to the felony level. The more people that are charged and convicted of a felony the more there are that lose voting and second amendment rights. Its a way for TPTB to strip people of some of the most important rights to insure freedom.

More crimes are not being moved up to the felony level, and possession of less than 35 is a misdameanor and the only way it will change is if the Federal Government makes the change.

North Dakota State Laws
19-03.4 - DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
CHAPTER 19-03 NARCOTICS [Repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 235, § 49]Page No.
CHAPTER 19-03.1 UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACTUniform


Criminal Defense Website - North Dakota Possession of Marijuana

Marijuana Possession

It is a crime to knowingly or intentionally possess marijuana in North Dakota. Penalties vary according to the amount possessed, with increased penalties for possession within 1,000 feet of a school. (N.D. Code Ann. § 19-03.1-23(7).)
A •Up to one-half of an ounce. Penalties include a fine of up to $1,000, up to 30 days in jail, or both.
B •Between one-half ounce and one ounce. Penalties include a fine of up to $1,000, up to one year in jail, or both.
C •One ounce or more. Penalties include a fine of up to $5,000, up to five years in prison, or both.


I added the A, B and C.

A and B are misdameanors and C is a felony.


As for the topic we really need to keep our business in house. Running to the UN because they are not getting what they want is a very very slippery slope and all it takes is one incident to open the flood gates. The goal of the NAACP could very well have extreme repercussions for their future issues.
edit on 29-9-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
8

log in

join