• 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
Yeah, any one using any government service should not be allowed to vote. You drive on a government funded road, you do not get to vote. Just ****ing brilliant.

And yes, I do realize you mean just those people you don't like who get benefits from the government...

no, those who take take take and don't' give give give

you having served in the military have paid your dues so I am not talking about yanking your ability to vote
 

I wouldn't call it a mistake. It was an intentional effort to indoctrinate people into believing in the false and absurd idea that people have a right to participate in the political process.
 
no, those who take take take and don't' give give give

you having served in the military have paid your dues so I am not talking about yanking your ability to vote

Every one takes, every one gives. Trying to pick and chose who is the right kind of giver and who is the right kind of taker is a sad, vile little plan.
 
Every one takes, every one gives. Trying to pick and chose who is the right kind of giver and who is the right kind of taker is a sad, vile little plan.

only if you want the net tax payers getting shafted even more
 
actually nothing actually requires a right to vote. The 17th amendment is an abomination and we need to get rid of it. But the point I was making is that former felon status doesn't mean much to me

True, but is it constitutional to give you the right to vote but tell people who are likely to vote differently than you, "there's no constitutional right for anyone to vote. Go home."?
 
True, but is it constitutional to give you the right to vote but tell people who are likely to vote differently than you, "there's no constitutional right for anyone to vote. Go home."?

no its not. lots of people got educated on the "right to vote" during the Gore attempt to steal Florida from Bush
 
I dont know if there is Constitutional justification or not but IMO convicted felons should regain their right to vote after they are released. I'm not sure they should lose it upon conviction either.

Is it just a punitive measure or is there some other foundation for it?
 
There may be cases where it is appropriate to strip people of their citizenship. But barring those exceptional cases I think a felony conviction should not take away a person's right to vote (although an argument can be made that during incarceration people should not be allowed to vote).
 
What does a social contract mean if voting rights are withheld? Upon release, suspension of rights must be rescinded with immediate effect, or there's an argument for why they should henceforth be bound by the laws of the land.
 
What does a social contract mean if voting rights are withheld? Upon release, suspension of rights must be rescinded with immediate effect, or there's an argument for why they should henceforth be bound by the laws of the land.

Actually the laws of the land are binding on all those who reside in it, regardless of whether they can vote or not. But I agree that citizens of a country should not be deprived of their right to vote solely on the basis of a criminal conviction.
 
Actually the laws of the land are binding on all those who reside in it, regardless of whether they can vote or not. But I agree that citizens of a country should not be deprived of their right to vote solely on the basis of a criminal conviction.
I'm assuming you're referring exclusively to instances where either status or contravention renders the point moot.
 
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. :)

The 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You're right as far as it being unconstitutional to deny a felon the right to vote.

The 24th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Since serving ones time and paying restitution/court costs is considered as paying a debt to society it could be considered as a poll tax and as such what you said about not being able to vote while in prison may be a violation of the Constitution also. Depending on how you look at it of course. And since they considered demanding people take tests and those people must pass those tests in order to vote as a "poll tax" also this argument could legitimately be made.
 
I could see the argument for forbidding felons who are still serving their time from voting but I feel that once you finish your prison time you should have every single right to vote.
...and every single other right restored as well.
 
I dont know if there is Constitutional justification or not but IMO convicted felons should regain their right to vote after they are released. I'm not sure they should lose it upon conviction either.

Is it just a punitive measure or is there some other foundation for it?
I think it's purely punitive, and mostly for show. Most criminal types aren't exactly concerned thoughtful citizens who would want to vote anyway.

I'm also not wholly convinced we should take it away when they're convicted, but that aspect is so far down on my priority list I never argue the point. It's something I can live with.
 
It's allowed under the Constitution-- remember, it took a Constitutional amendment to allow non-landowners to vote-- but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
 
Convicted felons loose many rights when incarcerated.

Personally I find loss of voting rights perfectly reasonable.

I do think they should regain the right to vote immediately (or very soon afterwards) upon finishing up their sentence.
 
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 
Per the 5th Amendment, you cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

A convicted felon, by definition, has gone through due process of law.
 
voting is a privilege under constitutional law....it not a natural right.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

rights do not have Qualifications requisite

rights are negative law......and requires no action from government to exercise

privileges are positive law.. an require an action of government to exercise

Negative vs. Positive Rights


A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction.

A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.

Negative and positive rights frequently conflict because carrying out the duties conferred by positive rights often entails infringing upon negative rights. For example, the positive right to social welfare confers a duty upon the government to provide services. Carrying out this duty entails increasing state expenditures, which would likely require raising taxes. This would however infringe upon citizens’ negative right not to have their money taken away from them. Because positive rights imply positive duties to take action whereas negative rights imply that others must only refrain from taking action, positive rights are generally harder to justify and require more complex ethical substantiation than negative rights.
http://www.globalization101.org/negative-vs-positive-rights/
 
Once their time is served all rights and I mean all rights need to be restored to them.

Yea, because we need to extent back to them their gun rights. Once they have already proved they cant live in civil society.
 
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. :)

After the punishment phase is completed to the satisfaction of the courts (this would include probation), ALL rights and liberties of the individual should once again recognized.
 
After the punishment phase is completed to the satisfaction of the courts (this would include probation), ALL rights and liberties of the individual should once again recognized.

IN MY OPINION:

the federal government wrote the amendment that way to bar former southern government officials from holding office again....they could no longer vote which is part of the actions/duties of an elected official.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom