Our president was convicted of a DUI.

 

Not a felony

Yes, yes, I believe that the etc. was intended to refer to the country club criminal contingent.

 

It did. If you don't want to believe that, that's your perogative.

Or break the law and cost taxpayers $1 billion in a S&L bailout but be lucky enough to be a Bush and have Asian hotties inexplicably come to your hotel and have sex with you for no apparant reason...

 

Or break the law and have enough money to give to Bill and Hillary to get yourself pardoned.

Or break the law and have enough money to give to Bill and Hillary to get yourself pardoned.

 

But be sure to get a sizeable library donation out of it... touche'

Just so you know. 49 states and the District of Columbia allow voting rights to be restored to ex-cons. 15 states have a specific process for it, and some of those states permanently disqualify specific people from be able to vote in their state again. Florida suspends all of your civil rights and you have to apply for them all, including your right to vote, after your sentence is completed.

 

The only state in the Union that doesn't allow convicted felons to vote again is Alabama. The same state that rejected throwing out language that support segregationist policies in its state constitution last November.

 

What the Democrats are asking for seems pretty simple. Create a national standard that does pretty much what 98% of the states in this country already do. Allow ex-cons to vote.

Just so you know. 49 states and the District of Columbia allow voting rights to be restored to ex-cons. 15 states have a specific process for it, and some of those states permanently disqualify specific people from be able to vote in their state again. Florida suspends all of your civil rights and you have to apply for them all, including your right to vote, after your sentence is completed.

 

The only state in the Union that doesn't allow convicted felons to vote again is Alabama. The same state that rejected throwing out language that support segregationist policies in its state constitution last November.

 

What the Democrats are asking for seems pretty simple. Create a national standard that does pretty much what 98% of the states in this country already do. Allow ex-cons to vote.

 

 

Apples and oranges. They may grow in the same state, but they are two different things.

 

All men are created equal. That does not mean that all men maintain their standing. Any US born citizen is taught about the felony-vote relationship. Any naturalized US citizen is also made aware of this. It's all part of the actions-consequences equation. And if 49 states and DC have methods in place to allow for the reinstatement of these rights, what is wrong with that? There is no reason whatsoever we should just hand these felons their right to vote back just because they achieve the major accomplishment of serving their time ... which, in most cases, they actually haven't done.

 

Spending 10 years in the state pen does not mean you are better person and a law abiding citizen on the day you walk out of there. I see nothing wrong with making these people prove their value to society before just arbitrarily handing them the same rights as a law abiding citizen.

I see nothing wrong with making these people prove their value to society before just arbitrarily handing them the same rights as a law abiding citizen.

 

I don't disagree with that, just allow that there is a mechanism by which those rights are lawfully reinstated in reasonable time. How about two years on the outside and no trouble, and you can vote again?

 

You set yourself apart from the other dissenters in that you allow that ex-cons CAN prove their value to society. It seems that should be a given or we'd never bother ever releasing anyone back into society.

I don't disagree with that, just allow that there is a mechanism by which those rights are lawfully reinstated in reasonable time.  How about two years on the outside and no trouble, and you can vote again?

 

You set yourself apart from the other dissenters in that you allow that ex-cons CAN prove their value to society.  It seems that should be a given or we'd never bother ever releasing anyone back into society.

 

 

Thanks. But why not let this be decided on the state level? Why does it always have to be a federal or nationwide policy?

Thanks.  But why not let this be decided on the state level?  Why does it always have to be a federal or nationwide policy?

 

I don't think it does need to be decided at the federal level by any means. It appeared to be the dissenting voices that suggested that the 49 states that had some vehicle for reinstatement of tights got it wrong.

 

They're answer to most of our lefty drivel is "move to Canada,".... Maybe the answer here is for them to move to Alabama...

I think the reason is that since we have national elections, we ought to have a national election standard of who can and can not vote. If there is one standard applied equally to every federal level election, irregularities would be easier to find, police and avoid.

I think the reason is that since we have national elections, we ought to have a national election standard of who can and can not vote. If there is one standard applied equally to every federal level election, irregularities would be easier to find, police and avoid.

 

The less the feds are involved in things, the better off we are, imho. However, I'll qualify that with this. If someone attempts to skew a federal election at the state or local level, they should have to answer for it in a federal court.

Gimme a freaking break. More of this democrats care, republicans don't crap.

 

Please.