Hillery Clinton wants felons to vote read the story here.
I don't know why this catches me off guard. It only makes sense for someone like Hillery to propose this idea.
Felons committed a serious crime. Once that line is crossed, they lose certain rights for the rest of their lives. These rights include possessing a firearm and voting. Most states (if not all) also forbid a felon from owning real estate.
This is just more evidence that the Democrats are losing their grip on reality. I guess they no longer feel they can win a national election using only honest people and empty lots in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
yeah and so are Terry Nichols, Scott Eisember, and Ted Kozenski
H I L L A R Y at least spell it right
Are you sure you do not want 1.5 million people not to have a voice.
Did you know that 34 states gave the rights back once the time is served.
Did you know that 2 states allow prisoners to vote?
What does not letting people vote do for society? Does it keep down the minority vote? Is it part of some antebellum relic from the days of slaves.
What about international law? We actively push international laws to let felons vote in other elections outside of this country.
In my last post I used 1.5 million as my argument. The link you provide raises it to 4.7 million Americans that are barred from voting because of their criminal records. That is a lare number of people that may be barred from voteing for life.
Yes,
I am sure about that. If someone respects our code of laws and our society so much that they commit a felony, They should lose the right to vote. From that point forward, they are a lessor citizen than the law abiding masses. That is part of the consequences of actions people must be responsible for. I am not tolerant on that.
And about the earlier post...spelling Hillery's name wrong, sorry about that, it won't happen again. (wink wink) I didn't mean to get under your skin so easy (wink wink).
I would agree with you if it weren't that a significant portion of the US population is behind bars. What kind of democracy do you expect this to be when most people don't vote anyway and then of those that do care to vote the ones that are ex-fellons aren't allowed?
It's just not democratic.
Revoking the right to bear arms however, that's a bit more reasonable.
While I do sympathize with your arguement, I still see no reason for someone who disrespected our society of laws so much that they committed a felony, should still be allowed to vote. Once again that is one of the consequences of actions people must consider before commiting their particular act.
As for trying to promote more participation in elections, I personally would better trust politicians chosen by law abiding citizens than by those chosen by criminals. Who do you think would be tougher on crime?
What is a "lessor citizen"?
In fact, what is a "lesser citizen"?
sorry...lesser is what I meant.
Lesser citizen is just a term I politically incorrectly use to refer to criminals, cons and ex-cons.
When someone has served their sentence, it should be a clean slate. If they can work and pay taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
Our prison system is disgraceful; especially in California. This has nothing to do with being a bleeding heart liberal. If someone commits a serious crime they should have the book thrown at them.
In California the prison guards' union and the top wardens have more clout than anyone. They're completely unaccountable to anyone, and they have California legislators eating out of their hand. Abu Ghraib would be preferable to some of California's maximum security prisons like Pelican Bay and Corcorran.
If ex-felons could vote, maybe these spineless legislators who keep bending over and spreading their cheeks for the prison guards' union could be voted out.
Tom Harper
http://whohijackedourcountry.blogspot.com
dear stupid blogger,
you are stupid, there is no other way to put it. People like you have no concept of forgiveness, rehabilitation. To say that once a person has commited a crime he no longer has the right or capacity to vote is ludicrous. To prevent these people from voting is the kind of totalitarian regime that the bush haters of this world are opposed too.
Your debate lacks a certain credible element to it. I would like to take this opportunity to direct you to the comments of others who have commented such as Hugh Porterfield, mquest, Oscar, and Tom Harper. If you don't have an intelligent comment to make (either left or right) please don't waste our time.
If you will read my profile you will notice that I use this forum to expand my understanding of the issues by putting forward an arguement and doing my best to defend it. Sometimes I do change my mind, but not often. However I always come away with a better understanding of BOTH sides.
Please add something beneficial, or just pass this blog by.
Thank you.
In reading your comments and those that followed you, one point was missed - Hillary is preparing for a Presidential run. If ex-felons were given the right to vote through the efforts of a Democratic candidate, it would only stand to reason that the majority of those people would vote for the champion of their cause. As close a race as it was in 2004 it makes sense that the "every vote counts" campaign slogan should include a "once captive" audience in 2008.
Post a Comment