The most self serving gaggle of rubble to ever come down the pike..are concerned with the Underserved.....what a bogus Conundrum
Oh Great Leader we do not DESERVE such Compassion..Caring..or LUV.
Posted on 03/01/2014 2:42:36 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Attorney General Eric Holder’s call to restore voting rights to felons after they’ve served their time in prison has split Senate Democrats.
Liberal Democrats who are not facing tough re-elections this year say it’s the right thing to do, but vulnerable incumbents are steering clear of the proposal.
ADVERTISEMENT
Holder has become increasingly outspoken recently. This week he declared that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that are discriminatory.
Political experts say barring ex-felons from voting impacts African Americans disproportionately.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Ever hear of Fast & Furious?
That was a very easily provable case of state-sponsored terrorsim; how many people have been jailed for it?
Prosecutions and convictions are directly proportional as to which side of the government fence you are standing on at the time in question...
Yes, I think we get the picture with the Holder/Obama motivation for aggressively affecting the vote, even to facilitate anarchy when and wherever thought necessary.
Ref. #51 has it right, in spades. We are in a fundamentally changed America today. A gangland attack is in progress, politically, turning the Constitution on its head. Sadly, old rules and expectations are winning nothing, in these times.
Sounds real bad. Why do you stay?
Why do YOU stay here?! I am not willing to walk off on friends and family. I do not fear to call a turd a piece of shit, and still have hope for the betterment of MY country, which by the way, I gave up 8 years of my life in two military enlistments to defend, voluntarily.
I haven't gotten stung by these corrupt investigators you speak of, neither has anyone in my family or circle of friends. So, it hasn't been as bad for me as you describe it as being.
Ironic since letting felons vote would help those vulnerable incumbents, which is WHY Holder wants to give them the vote. I remember arguing once with this freeper who's son was a convicted felon, he want them to have the vote and didn't give a damn that it would help the rats.
I understand your tack. I respectfully disagree. Felons have generally demonstrated moral turpitude, total disrespect for the laws of God and men, a desire to scam the system, and a general lack of judgement. A felon will tend to elect people just like them and we have enough criminals in government now. So I do not support restoring a felons’ right to vote.
100% agreement
============================================
Now 2014 looms and Demons are in big trouble----they want (and desperately need) felon votes b/c: (1) the majority would likely vote for Demo'Rats, (2) vote-crazed 'Rats need new voting blocs - legal or illegal.
===================================================
It is rather interesting that some slavishly liberal Dems are holding back support----seems the jerkoffs learned a hard lesson from the O/Care debacle (snix).
When the Demons uniformly marched together for O/Care, Americans had not seen such lock-stepping party loyalty, and obeisance to their party's leader, since 1930-40s era Europe.
I do.
The moral turpitude argument would have been valid 200 years ago (probably even 100), but not now — the reaason is this: the class of felon
is far too broad now.
In Three Felonies a Day, the author goes over how the proliferation of felonies has turned the normal behavior of many normal people into arguable felonies; from an interview:
Why did you decide to write this book?in fact, any [federal] sentence greater than a single year is a felony:
Sometime in the mid-1980s I started to notice a change in the nature of the federal criminal prosecutions that I was handling during the course of my criminal defense and civil liberties law practice. I started to represent more and more indicted clients where neither I nor other lawyers in my firm could figure out quite what the client/defendant had done to deserve to get indicted (or, if we got the case pre-indictment, what the client had done to get investigated or targeted). The client’s conduct seems to me to conform to normal standards and expectations, even if sometimes a bit aggressive or “sharp.” I started to keep notes on this phenomenon.
As the years wore on, the problems got more frequent and more acute. I was representing more and more federal criminal defendants who had done the deeds charged against them, but I did not deem what they did to constitute a crime. […] I vowed that someday I would write a book on this other phenomenon of federal criminal prosecutions on the basis of vague statutes, directed against innocent people.
From Wikipedia:18 U.S. Code § 3559 - Sentencing classification of offenses (a) Classification.— An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is— (1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony; (2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony; (3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony; (4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony; (5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony; (6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor; (7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor; (8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or (9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.
The reform of harsh felony laws that had originated in Great Britain was deemed "one of the first fruits of liberty" after the United States became independent.
[…]
Federal law does not have any provisions for persons convicted of federal felonies in a federal United States district court to apply to have their record expunged. While the pending Second Chance Act[dated info] would change this if enacted, at present the only relief that an individual prosecuted in federal court may receive is a Presidential Pardon, which does not expunge the conviction, but rather grants relief from the civil disabilities that stem from it.
It seems to me that the following was prophetic:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." — Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Meant to ping you too to the above.
Great comment, agree 1000%
The argument is as valid today as at any other time. As I indicated I understand you tack on the argument and I disagree. I do agree that we have far far too many laws and far too much government. So I am with you on that.
Really, what about the felony of lying to a federal agent? (Remember Martha Stewart?
I've even read a few stories where a person was arrested/convicted for making false statements to the feds, which they didn't know was false (i.e. no mens rea).
As I indicated I understand you tack on the argument and I disagree. I do agree that we have far far too many laws and far too much government. So I am with you on that.
Ok then, let's go the other way: are there any felonies which ought not be felonies? If there are, then your assertion that the label of "felon" indicating moral turpitude comes under question. If I could prove that there are felonies which are themselves unlawful, would it not render your assertion invalid?
My assertion does not come under question rather the extension or enactment of a law comes under question. As to a person wrongfully convicted, once proven the conviction would be overturned and rights restored. If not then the right should be restored and and that condition rectified.
I can see your point that the federal GCA (Gun Control Act, I presume) can be considered as an ex post facto law when applied to felony offenders who were convicted of crimes before the law was enacted. Regretfully, however, the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws has been held by the courts to be applicable only to criminal statutes. Don't know if the ex post facto issue has been already litigated with respect to that provision of the CGA, but if it has, I would be kind of surprised if it was held to be in violation of the ex post facto clause - simply because federal courts lean toward statist interpretations of the Constitution nowadays.
Nice, Liz— nicely said.
Voter ID is anathema to totalitarians trying to goad street facists into action. ID requirements will work just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.