• 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!

More than 1 million Floridians with felony convictions get back their right to vote today

MTAtech said:
You have that backwards. When discussing whether to restrict fundamental rights, the onus is on those who want to restrict those rights and freedoms to show a rationale, instead of the other way around. The default is that one has rights, unless there is a compelling reason to deny them.
Click to expand...

There was awhile ago and they found it to be reasonable and fair to take away voting privileges for felony crimes. Most of the history of every state had them takin away since their founding. So what evidence or argument due you put forth to say they should be done away with?
Also its a privilege not a right don't get it twisted.
 
jdog21 said:
There was awhile ago and they found it to be reasonable and fair to take away voting privileges for felony crimes. Most of the history of every state had them takin away since their founding. So what evidence or argument due you put forth to say they should be done away with?
Also its a privilege not a right don't get it twisted.
Click to expand...

As I said, the rationale is on those who want to deny voting rights, which to be constitutional must have a compelling public interest. If the basis for denying rights is no longer valid, then the law should be revisited -- which seems to be the case in many, many states.

The overall reason for changing the law is that it doesn't make sense.
 
MTAtech said:
As I said, the rationale is on those who want to deny voting rights, which to be constitutional must have a compelling public interest. If the basis for denying rights is no longer valid, then the law should be revisited -- which seems to be the case in many, many states.

The overall reason for changing the law is that it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
The rational has already been agreed upon. If you want to restore voting eligibility to them whats your reasoning?
 
poweRob said:
Let's clear something up so that we are on the same page... was there Jim Crow era at all?
Click to expand...

Of course there was. Implying I'm arguing there wasn't, or don't think there was, is exceedingly disingenuous. And no, I've given you no reason whatsoever for doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom