• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is banning convicted felons from voting compliant with the constitution?

Is banning felons from voting constitutional?

  • Yes. Felons should lose their right to vote under the constitution during and after incarceration.

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Felons constitutionally lose their right to vote only during incarceration.

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • There is no constitutional justification to ban felons from voting during or after incarceration

    Votes: 12 35.3%
  • Stop using the race card!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    34
Yea, because we need to extent back to them their gun rights. Once they have already proved they cant live in civil society.

I can see the justification with regard to guns and violent felons, though an outright ban on a convicted owning a firearm simply because of a felony conviction has problems Constitutionally. But let's face there are lots of non violent felonies the distinction between a felon and a misdemeanor is getting thinner every day.

As far as voting goes there's really no good reason to restrict any citizen's voting rights.

I don't mind working out some kind of compromise that would restore both gun rights and voting rights to people who have served their sentences for nonviolent crimes.
 
Yea, because we need to extent back to them their gun rights. Once they have already proved they cant live in civil society.

Once you are not longer prison. You are a citizen again and their for all rights given back.
 
I think all rights should be restored upon completion of sentencing. There is no reason a person who has made a mistake in their life cannot go on to become a prominent citizen. Unfortunately people learn from mistakes and our society never forgives.

The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor a lot of times is the ability to afford decent counsel, political or influential connection, the color of your skin, and the unfortunate mistake of working with authorities.

As my sergeant in the MP explained to me, "The difference between a good citizen and a the worst felon on this earth is a young child running out between parked cars. All six friends drank 3 beers and ate pizza. Only 1 had the unfortunate incident of a child running out in front of his car. Whether drunk or sober he would not have been able to avoid hitting this child. However those 3 beers make him the worst person on this planet. The other 5 who were fortunate enough to drive home with out incident are your good citizens. All committed the same crime of driving while intoxicated."

This sergeant spent a lot of time guarding prisoners in the military and listening to their stories. A lot of his stories should be taught in school. They are true and are eye openers.
 
I think all rights should be restored upon completion of sentencing. There is no reason a person who has made a mistake in their life cannot go on to become a prominent citizen. Unfortunately people learn from mistakes and our society never forgives.
I presume you meant "fortunately".

The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor a lot of times is the ability to afford decent counsel, political or influential connection, the color of your skin, and the unfortunate mistake of working with authorities.

As my sergeant in the MP explained to me, "The difference between a good citizen and a the worst felon on this earth is a young child running out between parked cars. All six friends drank 3 beers and ate pizza. Only 1 had the unfortunate incident of a child running out in front of his car. Whether drunk or sober he would not have been able to avoid hitting this child. However those 3 beers make him the worst person on this planet. The other 5 who were fortunate enough to drive home with out incident are your good citizens. All committed the same crime of driving while intoxicated."

This sergeant spent a lot of time guarding prisoners in the military and listening to their stories. A lot of his stories should be taught in school. They are true and are eye openers.
That's an interesting point...I wonder how many times a person gets away with something like driving while intoxicated and how many times a person gets charged with manslaughter or whatnot simply because they were intoxicated....
 
I presume you meant "fortunately".

That's an interesting point...I wonder how many times a person gets away with something like driving while intoxicated and how many times a person gets charged with manslaughter or whatnot simply because they were intoxicated....

Patrolling 11:00pm to 7:00am and listening to this sergeant's stories were some of the most enlightening times of my life.
He was a wonderful black man finishing out a distinguished career of 30 years in the military. He could have retired 10 years earlier but he enjoyed working with young recruits. The knowledge passed on to me from this man changed my life as well as many others. You could look at him as a soft spoken experienced driver pulling back on the reigns of many young men who might easily run unknowingly over a cliff in their zeal to fix the world.
 
Yea, because we need to extent back to them their gun rights. Once they have already proved they cant live in civil society.

Not all convicted felons committed violent offenses.

And if they want to re-offend when they are released and want a gun, they'll get one. Breaking the law...in for a penny, in for a pound. I wont make a difference.

If you finish your sentence, you should have all your rights back...otherwise what are the incentives to rehabilitate? Due process has been served....
 
Not all convicted felons committed violent offenses.

And if they want to re-offend when they are released and want a gun, they'll get one. Breaking the law...in for a penny, in for a pound. I wont make a difference.

If you finish your sentence, you should have all your rights back...otherwise what are the incentives to rehabilitate? Due process has been served....

Once you are a felon, I don't care about your rights.
 
Not all convicted felons committed violent offenses.

And if they want to re-offend when they are released and want a gun, they'll get one. Breaking the law...in for a penny, in for a pound. I wont make a difference.

If you finish your sentence, you should have all your rights back...otherwise what are the incentives to rehabilitate? Due process has been served....
I'm with ya, but I fear that our so-called leaders and judges would just start including permanent right revocal* in sentences, hence no sentence would ever be "complete".

*-Presuming that's a word.


Once you are a felon, I don't care about your rights.
You strike me as someone who equates arrest with guilt. Someone who thinks every acquittal and 'not guilty' finding is just some slick lawyer beating the system.
 
I'm with ya, but I fear that our so-called leaders and judges would just start including permanent right revocal* in sentences, hence no sentence would ever be "complete".

*-Presuming that's a word.



You strike me as someone who equates arrest with guilt. Someone who thinks every acquittal and 'not guilty' finding is just some slick lawyer beating the system.

Did you wake up with me this morning? No, so you don't know me well enough to make that assumption.
 
Nor the Constitution apparently.

Nor controlled and reasonable government force. Authoritarians are not for freedom, they are for State power.
 
First, let me say I have traditionally opposed felons having the right to vote. However, in 2012 with what seemed to ME to be deliberate efforts to create obstacles for certain people to vote based on how they are likely to vote, I began to ponder the legality to restrictions and hindrances to voting and the one man one vote concept. I might be missing something, admittedly, but I see nothing in the constitution that justifies stripping an an American citizen of their civil rights with the exception of involuntary servitude specifically limited to the duration of their sentance. This means, if I'm correct felons have a right to vote after their incarceration. I also believe, not based on any personal desire or agenda but objective understanding of what US citizenship affords, specifically equal protection under the law; felons currently incarcerated also have a right to vote no different than their rights to access to the courts.

Have fun responding. :)

I think it's ridiculous that a felony equals loss of voting unless it's specific crimes tied to voting, like voting fraud etc.

When someone serves their time...they served their time. I'm not sure why they lose their right to weigh in on civic issues.
 
I am loath to see ANY of my fellow Americans restricted from voting (on principle).

But I also have practical objections - felons often cannot vote already, and I recently saw a thread here debating the loss of voting rights for those on welfare.

When we restrict voting rights for any group we leave open the possibility of the slippery slope of further restrictions for other groups deemed marginal to society. Of course "Who deems them marginal?" is the $64M question.

As to the cons - they did their time, that's good enough for me.
 
I think it's ridiculous that a felony equals loss of voting unless it's specific crimes tied to voting, like voting fraud etc.

When someone serves their time...they served their time. I'm not sure why they lose their right to weigh in on civic issues.

Because they have proven to not be able to make good decisions.
 
I am loath to see ANY of my fellow Americans restricted from voting (on principle).

But I also have practical objections - felons often cannot vote already, and I recently saw a thread here debating the loss of voting rights for those on welfare.

When we restrict voting rights for any group we leave open the possibility of the slippery slope of further restrictions for other groups deemed marginal to society. Of course "Who deems them marginal?" is the $64M question.

As to the cons - they did their time, that's good enough for me.
And when some 4 time loser kicks in your door or jacks your car?
 
Because they have proven to not be able to make good decisions.

They have proven they made at least one very bad decision in their lifetime.

the most common felonies?

Drug abuse, DUI, Property crime, larceny, theft, assault, disorderly conduct, drunkenness....
I'm not saying those are minor crimes but half those are probably done by a majority of college students during Spring Break...
 
They have proven they made at least one very bad decision in their lifetime.

the most common felonies?

Drug abuse, DUI, Property crime, larceny, theft, assault, disorderly conduct, drunkenness....
I'm not saying those are minor crimes but half those are probably done by a majority of college students during Spring Break...
Lifes lessons then. And no, if they do it as a stupid 19 year old. I don't care how far in life it follows them.
 
When some guys right are restored and he sticks a 9mm in your face.

If he was prone to do that anyway, what recognizing his rights gonna do about that? He'd probably just get a gun illegally and do it that way. Or are you one of those people who believe that restrictions magically make it so people cannot obtain things?

hahaha
 
Back
Top Bottom