Allowing Felons to Vote While Incarcerated Is Reckless

Allowing Felons to Vote While Incarcerated Is Reckless

 Hans von Spakovsky

The idea that felons should be allowed to vote while incarcerated is not just an unwise policy, it is a reckless one.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically provides that states may abridge the right to vote of citizens “for participation in rebellion, or other crime” — a tradition that goes back to ancient Greece and Rome. Any claim that state laws that prevent incarcerated felons from voting are all rooted in racial discrimination is simply historically inaccurate. Even before the Civil War, when many black Americans were slaves and could not vote, most states took away the right to vote of those convicted of serious crimes.

All but two states, Maine and Vermont, take away the right of felons to vote when they are convicted and are serving their sentences. Such a policy makes perfect sense and is in the best interests of our society and local communities. As a federal judge said in 2002 in an unsuccessful case challenging Florida’s disenfranchisement law, felons are deprived of their ability to vote because of “their own decision to commit an act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment.”

In other words, felons are individuals who have chosen to violate the rules and norms of our society, rules and norms that are incorporated in our laws and that are intended to protect all of us and provide for the safety of our communities. Those who are not willing to follow the law cannot claim a right to choose those who will make and enforce the laws for everyone else.

That is what you, as a citizen, are doing when you enter a polling place to vote. As a voter, you are either making the law directly through ballot initiatives and referenda or indirectly by choosing not only lawmakers, but the local sheriffs, prosecutors, and judges who enforce the law.

Why would you want to allow those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens to vote while they are still incarcerated? They have demonstrated by their action that they do not have the responsibility and commitment to our laws to make them trustworthy enough to vote.

Does anyone really think that someone like Richard Poplawski, who was convicted of the ambush-style killing of three Pittsburgh police officers, should be able to vote while he is sitting on death row?

And who will be hurt the most by allowing incarcerated felons to vote? It is law-abiding citizens in high-crime areas where people are often disproportionately poor and minority. It is hardly in their best interests to allow the criminals who victimize them to stand next to them in the ballot box, figuratively speaking.

Most states restore the right to vote once the felon is out of prison and has completed any required parole or probation, although some states also have a waiting period beyond that because of high recidivism rates. This makes sense.

The right to vote should not be restored until felons have been released and shown that they really have learned their lesson, turned over a new leaf, and are now willing to abide by the rules under which we all live.

Letting them vote from prison, cancelling out the votes of their victims, is an unfair and imprudent proposal.   ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 33

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


I did talk to my friend but the video it didn't come thru so tried again with another video but I have not received anything as of yet.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service