Santorum defends support for restoring felons’ voting rights

The Washington Times ^ | January 16, 2012 | Stephen Dinan

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I am not convinced that all felons need to lose their voting rights forever. If they have cleaned up their act, then I don’t have a problem with them voting. If they haven’t, or have been convicted several times, they shouldn’t be voting”

The first thing O Malley and his Democrats did when they got full power in Maryland was to restore voting for felons, then they raised taxes, then they got re-elected, then they raised taxes again.

My point is a broader one. The compassionate conservative or compassionate liberal FEDERAL government should not be telling states how to set their voting rules. That is historically a new idea now ~ 1960s and apparently widely accepted, and it is how Obama is suing states for requiring voter ID. If an ex-felon cant vote in a certain state and doesn't like it he can more to another state like Maryland.

Besides too many Republicans wanting to expand Federal power, I also see comments here on this thread calling voting a right. This is also liberal idea and is also being used daily by liberals now to argue against state voter ID bills. There is no right to voting in the US constitution. States were given the responsibility to make up their own voting regulations by the constitution not the federal government.

But as I stated, each party only says 'the constitution' when the other party is in power and they dont like what they do. When 'my guy' is in office he keeps us safe and so the USC is not that important is the motto.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Exactly. ALL of his rights should be returned once the sentance is served. This would include 2nd amendment rights as well. Otherwise, you end up with a lesser class of “citizen”. I'm disappointed that so many freepers oppose this. There are far too many things in modern America that would make one a ‘felon’.”

The Second amendment specifically protects my right to arm myself.
Where the hell in the US Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to tell states what their voting rules can be? Where is the 'right to vote' specifically listed there? That is how Obama is suing states to overturn voter ID laws.

Neither the compassionate conservative or compassionate liberal FEDERAL government should be telling states how to set their voting rules. Don't like your state laws?? Then move!

[Gilbo_3]

the numbers may be arguable, as i believe that the *cost* to lock up someone is very easily manipulated...

now the question to be begged is what do we consider a *must* lock em up offense ???

Felon has become a useless indicator of crime or personality...soon the majority will be unconvicted felons of some crime, at some level, merely walking thru our daily lives...

*crime* demands punishment...dangerous and unpredictable criminals need to be locked up, those who will never be civilized, should be hanged...

those who might be convicted of lesser crimes should be put to labor, offsetting their *cost* to the rest of the citizenry, which once the sentence is fulfilled, the former prisoner should return to, becoming a citizen again, unless and until another violation occurs...

basically, if someone cant be trusted with citizenship, lcok em up and spare my family from having to suffer their activities...voting or otherwise...

[DoughtyOne]

RE : I am not convinced that all felons need to lose their voting rights forever. If they have cleaned up their act, then I don’t have a problem with them voting. If they haven’t, or have been convicted several times, they shouldn’t be voting.

The first thing O Malley and his Democrats did when they got full power in Maryland was to restore voting for felons, then they raised taxes, then they got re-elected, then they raised taxes again.

Sounds about par for the course.

My point is a broader one. The compassionate conservative or compassionate liberal FEDERAL government should not be telling states how to set their voting rules. That is historically a new idea now ~ 1960s and apparently widely accepted, and it is how Obama is suing states for requiring voter ID. If an ex-felon cant vote in a certain state and doesn't like it he can more to another state like Maryland.

I agree with that and I believe it's a reasoned point to be making.  Individual states should be making their own voting laws.  I will confess to seeing problems with that too though.  A number of states have gone the route of open elections for the primaries.  Now it's next to impossible for those states to loft a Conservative and get them the nomination for the general election.

Besides too many Republicans wanting to expand Federal power, I also see comments here on this thread calling voting a right. This is also liberal idea and is also being used daily by liberals now to argue against state voter ID bills. There is no right to voting in the US constitution. States were given the responsibility to make up their own voting regulations by the constitution not the federal government.

Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions because the words 'voting rights' appear here.  When discussing voting rights, you could be addressing a Constititonal right, or simply a right that had been previously granted by a state.  For instance my comment, "I am not convinced that all felons need to lose their voting rights forever.", doesn't address or imply a Constitutional right.  It merely addresses a previously granted right to vote that might have been rescinded.

But as I stated, each party only says 'the constitution' when the other party is in power and they dont like what they do. When 'my guy' is in office he keeps us safe and so the USC is not that important is the motto.

While I agree in principle, because I have seen this too, I have also seen many Conservatives trash Republican presidents for doing things they see as unconstitutional.  Of course the 'my guy' rule would probably apply there too though. 

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions because the words ‘voting rights’ appear here. When discussing voting rights, you could be addressing a Constititonal right, or simply a right that had been previously granted by a state. For instance my comment, “I am not convinced that all felons need to lose their voting rights forever.”, doesn't address or imply a Constitutional right. It merely addresses a previously granted right to vote that might have been rescinded.”

I would call it ‘the ability to vote’. Do I have a right to drive a car? Few phrase it that way. Yes, many see voting as such a important thing that they view it as a 'right' (my vote is worthless is Maryland.)
On the left they been making the argument that ID required for airlines and alcohol and tobacco (demanded by Democrats in power) is not the same as voting because voting is a ‘right’, or many times ‘voting is a constitutional right’. So an ID requirement takes away their right to vote, if they don't have an ID. Democrats are pretty fired up about this.

You get my point.

Some on both sides will claim the 14th Amendment covers all these rights that no-one ever thought of for hundreds of years(like a felon's right to vote), but the 14th amendment was passed specifically to protect ex-slaves and maybe their successors.

[DoughtyOne]

I would call it ‘the ability to vote. Do I have a right to drive a car? Few phrase it that way.

I agree that few phrase it that way.  I think they should be able to though.  It has been my thought for some time that freedom of assembly means that I should be able to use what ever modern convenience I might choose to extend my ability to assemble, or pursue my own interests.  While I agree that some standards should be met, it is still my take that baring a personal physical limitation, or some determination that I was not of sound mind, or that I couldn't or wouldn't comply with sound driving rules of the road, I should be able to walk, ride a bicycle, drive a car, or fly an airplane if that is what I choose to do.  I should have to demonstrate a certain level of competence to do so, but having done so, I would consider this to be a right.

Yes, many see voting as such a important thing that they view it as a 'right' (my vote is worthless is Maryland.)

I hear ya.

I try to be a strong supporter of the Tenth Amendment.  It does seem to me that it would be possible for individual states to do things that are not sound though.  Should states be able to deny whites the right to vote?  Should the state be able to deny Christians the right to vote?  Should the states be able to deny women, men, or blonds the right to vote?  Beyond the vote, should the states be able to deny blacks the ability to attend public schools?  Was that written into the U. S. Constitution?

At the time of our founding, there were denials of the right to vote.  Race and gender were disqualifications.  I believe land ownership was a must in some states.  I would submit that just as our Founders took a pass on addressing slavery at our founding, they also took a pass on specific voting rights, and other individual guarantees.

Were we intended to be subservient to our government, or was our government intended to be subservient to us?  I would submit that our nation was set up to guarantee sovereignty as well as self-determination.  How are we a self-determining people, if we can't express our will concerning how the government operates?  If we as a people cannot be guaranteed the right to vote baring a personal phsyical limitation, or a determination of us not being of sound mind, how do we keep our government in check?  How could we construe this as the goverment answering to us?  Why would "We the People..." appear and not "This Benevolent Government having absolute authority..."

On the left they been making the argument that ID required for airlines and alcohol and tobacco (demanded by Democrats in power) is not the same as voting because voting is a ‘right’, or many times ‘voting is a constitutional right’. So an ID requirement takes away their right to vote, if they don't have an ID. Democrats are pretty fired up about this.

I believe there is a very good case to be made for having to show identification to vote.  Voting fraud has been well documented.  And if voting fraud does take place, it nullifies the votes of people who are qualified to vote according to the rules.  Having said this, I remain unconvinced that forcing people to display I. D.s is the real answer to this problem.  We have instances of clear voter fraud, and yet nothing is done to hold accountable those who do an end run on the voting rules.  The enforcement of voter fraud with incredibly stiff penalties, is the way to go IMO.

When ACORN was registering every living being to vote, they should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  When Hermandad Nacional actually registered illegal immigrants to vote, and there was documented proof that they did vote in the election that ousted Congressman Dornan, and replaced him with Loretta Sanchez, everyone involved should have been prosecuted, and Hermandad Nacional should have been disbanded.  Instead, essentially nothing was done.

It seems to me we are being trained to perform like side show seals by our government.  Ultimately, I think that is going to be used against us.  I believe a case could be made that my objection to the presentation of I. D. when demanded, could actually facilitate what the govenrment has wanted all along though, and that's a way to I. D. us at will anywhere we go, track us, develop profiles, and do most of it under the color of national defense.

You get my point.

I do, and I'm not trying to be argumentative.   I do think there are some important aspects of this that get short shrift, but I understand your cause for concern and your call for voter I. D.s to be checked.

Some on both sides will claim the 14th Amendment covers all these rights that no-one ever thought of for hundreds of years(like a felon's right to vote), but the 14th amendment was passed specifically to protect ex-slaves and maybe their successors.

I don't have a burden to bring the 14th Amendment into this.  That's fine with me.  I do want to urge you to consider if some things that went unaddressed at our founding, were left unaddressed so that there wouldn't be stumbling blocks on the road to unification.  We know slavery was.  I am fairly certain that other things were left unaddressed as well.

[Impy]

Very minor issue to be a deal-breaker. If this is your standard then you’d probably find 90% of Republicans too objectionable to vote for.

On principal I think felons (after they are released) should have the right to vote. I’m not sure why it would even be constitutional to deny them it or any other right including the right to own a gun.

(The “state’s rights” angle to this is irrelevant to me, this does concern federal elections)

However the majority of convicted felons when allowed vote democrat, so screw them.

Years ago I said basically the same thing and got into a tiff with a freeper who’s son was convicted of some minor crime.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”On principal I think felons (after they are released) should have the right to vote. I’m not sure why it would even be constitutional to deny them it or any other right including the right to own a gun.
(The “state’s rights” angle to this is irrelevant to me, this does concern federal elections)
However the majority of convicted felons when allowed vote democrat, so screw them.”

Because there is nothing in the US constitution that gives congress the power to set local election laws, nor a gives a specific ‘right to vote’ or right to abortion or right to education or right to drive or right to same sex marriage. This is just populist rights growth stuff.
Next big government compassionate conservatives will demand on congress telling states how to redistrict of or how to set voter IDs like Holder is doing now.

Even in the case of picking a Senator the state voters can pick state representatives that set state voting laws to pick THEIR Senate representative.

Not happy with your state voters? You can always move.

[sickoflibs]

Even if it’s POTUS or Senator the state certifies the winners based on state election laws. In Florida 2000 Jeb Bush certified Bush’s electors and sent them to congress. The states pass their own voter ID laws (Obama doesn’t like that.) They pass their own voter poll hours, or days, or voting rules. They pay for elections with STATE taxes NOT federal taxes/

The congress should stick to stuff it is supposed to like defense, immigration, trade and interstate commerce.

[NFHale]

Santorum did pretty good tonight at the debate. Thought Gingrich did well too, especially flaying the skin off of Jon King for the lead-off ex-wife question.

[apocalypto]

I thought R. Santorum did the best. Even though Newt G. makes good points, he comes across as too angry. Bringing the mistress to the While House will not go well with many women voters.

[NFHale]

RE Mistress:

I hear you...but if the choice is between the Marxist kenyan and Newt’s mistress, that’s not a hard choice to make.

Newt’s ALWAYS had that pissed-off expression. Even when he smiles!! haha!

[apocalypto]

I agree 100%. I would take any of the four over B. Obama. That is not even a choice. His lawsuits against the states are a frightening grab for power.

[NFHale]

“...His lawsuits against the states are a frightening grab for power...”

Everything the Democrats do is a calculated grab for power.

They’ve sold whatever souls they had, and devoted their lives to turning us into a socialist country, and it shows in every single piece of legislative crap they shove down our throats.

If we’re stupid enough to let them win again, then we should not be surprised at what they’ve in store for us. We have a whole wealth of history lessons, both past and recent, to show exactly what’s waiting.