Florida high court sides with governor on felon voter rights

[Luther]

You will need to do better than that!

I AM HAWKEYE!

Alright, go ahead and still not explain why Florida is a Banana Republic

 

[Thoreau72]

Self defense is a natural right.

Natural rights exist ONLY if the government allows them.

 

[Chomsky]

The text is clear and the state's supreme court (and governor) made a decision plainly in line with that text (bold emphasis added):

No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.​

Since felon disenfranchisement itself is well-established in the US (and unquestionably constitutional), the only matter before the Florida SC was whether the governor's interpretation conflicted with the text of the state's new amendment. It obviously did not and the SC ruled as such.

This outcome was the only reasonable one.

Sadly, yes.

 

[Chomsky]

Living is a privilege when the gov't can kill you.

Given the legal death penalty in the States, I must agree.

 

[Chomsky]

\Boy, voting rights for jail birds

That's front and center in what ill's America(rolling eyes)

My take: All American citizens deserve the right to vote. We don't pick & choose.

 

[Phys251]

How about you look up the word 'lie' that way you wont look stupid when you misuse it.

Go back and read it calmly. The thing that does not make it ax explicit right is because the 19th describes a condition where voting cannot be “denied or abridged” and that is “on account of sex”.

“All citizens have the right to vote” would be an explicit right. The 19th and all the other references just reduce the realm of possible basis for voting to be denied or abridged.
It can be denied because of citizenship, age, and any other criteria that has not specifically been listed in the Constitution.

As for the personal attack, “Nuts”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:2funny: :2funny:

Let me give you two the help that you obviously need. Here are the literally copy-pasted words from the start of some Constitutional amendments:

15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
19th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
24th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
26th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote..."

And the 23rd Amendment gives the residents of Washington, DC the right to vote.

The Constitution of the United States of America literally says on FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS that voting is a RIGHT.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

:2funny: :2funny:

Let me give you two the help that you obviously need. Here are the literally copy-pasted words from the start of some Constitutional amendments:

15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
19th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
24th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
26th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote..."

And the 23rd Amendment gives the residents of Washington, DC the right to vote.

The Constitution of the United States of America literally says on FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS that voting is a RIGHT.

removed silly image as a courtesy to others

Again, the Constitution does not make an explicit statement that there is a right to vote, it does so at best, indirectly through progressive listings of what basis that a vote can be denied or abridged. Clearly, those amendments for denying or abridging the right to vote existed before each later amendment which you could see if you read each amendment all the way to the end. The Congress or states can pass a law denying the vote based on any objective criteria not otherwise prevented by the amendments you list.

To refresh, here are the groups that can not be denied or abridged the right to vote:

15th on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th on account of sex
24th by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
26th on account of age.

The 23rd Amendment merely gives the District of Columbia 3 Electoral Votes which does not explicitly say that the good folks of DC will be allowed to vote for those electors.

Even Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 indicated that "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." but it does not explicitly say that there will be a vote. Implied, assumed, expected could all be adjectives assuming the right to vote, but there is NO explicitly statement. A declarative statement ending in a period granting that right. If one has to use ellipsis, that is a clear sign of dishonesty.

Again, I'm talking about explicit language, not assumed rights.

Adding a link to Fairvote.org: Right to Vote Amendment - FairVote

Voting is an American principle and a basic democratic right that should be protected, promoted, and practiced, which is why many people are surprised to learn that the U.S. Constitution provides no explicit right to vote. This leaves voting rights vulnerable to the whims of politicians, and some citizens with fewer rights than others.

 

[Phys251]

Again, the Constitution does not make an explicit statement that there is a right to vote

Again with the bald-faced lie! :lamo

You either struggle with basic reading comprehension on simple definitions. Which is it? Do you need to work on reading the phrase, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote"? Or do you require a definition of the word "right" which you refuse to look up on your own?

You even admitted that voting is a right yourself:

To refresh, here are the groups that can not be denied or abridged the right to vote:

So which is it, Ali? Did you misspeak when you said that voting a right, or did you misspeak when you said that voting is not a right? You have confused yourself so much with your lying that you cannot even keep your lies straight! :laughat:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

First amendment rights have not been taken away, restricted perhaps, but not taken away.

There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

about "the right to vote". The closest that you get are Amendment 19

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 sex.
​

and Amendment 26

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
​

Using the legal interpretation rule of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.) that means that "the right to vote" could well be restricted on some grounds other than age and sex.

However, Amendment 14 states

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
​

and that might well mean that any "restriction on felons voting" would have to be at the federal level with any state level restrictions that are in excess of federal restrictions being unconstitutional.

If that is the case, then, it would likely be allowable for states to establish restrictions on voting for "state level" offices (which might well include voting on the selection of members of the Electoral College) but could NOT impose any restrictions in excess of the federal restrictions on voting for "national level" offices (which means voting on the selection of Senators and Representatives).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How did the people who wrote the Constitution come to the conclusion of what is and is not a right?

That's an easy one. They took a look at the Magna Carta Libertatum and the Bill of Rights 1689 which set out "The Rights of Englishmen" that the American Revolution had been fought to preserve/obtain and paraphrased them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Absolutely irrelevant. The right of citizens of the United States to vote is explicitly, verbatim protected by the Constitution.

Is it?

Do you mean

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.
​

or do you mean

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
​

which became

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
​

and, if so, doesn't the word "manner" in

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
​

mean that the federal government can oust any state laws concerning whether "felons" can vote or not?

You did notice that the word "citizen" does NOT appear anywhere in the cited portions of the Constitution of the United States of America, didn't you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Idiot. The RIGHT to vote is America's foundation.

You do realize that, if the restrictions on voting that the "Founding Fathers" felt perfectly comfortable with were to be re-imposed (with the appropriate adjustments for inflation) then roughly 80% of the current electorate would NOT have "The RIGHT to Vote" - don't you?

 

[Phys251]

Is it?

Do you mean

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.
​

or do you mean

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
​

which became

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
​

and, if so, doesn't the word "manner" in

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
​

mean that the federal government can oust any state laws concerning whether "felons" can vote or not?

You did notice that the word "citizen" does NOT appear anywhere in the cited portions of the Constitution of the United States of America, didn't you?

Not only that, slavery is not abolished anywhere in the three articles nor in the Bill of Rights! Therefore, by your idiotic logic, slavery is Constitutional! :lamo

Don't embarrass yourself like that, TU. You're better than that. Read the damn Amendments.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

\Boy, voting rights for jail birds

That's front and center in what ill's America(rolling eyes)

As a ballpark estimate, over 20 million Americans in society at large currently have a felony in their past

... as of 2010, 3 percent of the total U.S. population and 15 percent of the African-American male population have served time in prison. People with felony convictions more broadly account for 8 percent of the overall population and 33 percent of the African-American male population. ...

What that 8 percent means is that, if you put 12 people (chosen at random from the US population) in a room together, then 1 of them is almost certain to be one of your "jail birds".

What that 33 percent figure means is that if you put three "African-American males" (chosen at random from the US population) in a room together, then 1 of them is almost certain to be one of your "jail birds".

As far as I know (and I would be more than happy if someone has more accurate data) this is the historical rate of discrepancy and that means that the "felon restriction" is actually a restriction which is aimed primarily at one particular demographic and that demographic is NOT "felons".

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You do realize that, if the restrictions on voting that the "Founding Fathers" felt perfectly comfortable with were to be re-imposed (with the appropriate adjustments for inflation) then roughly 80% of the current electorate would NOT have "The RIGHT to Vote" - don't you?

You realize this is not 1789 anymore, right? Blacks can vote. Women can vote. Eighteen-year olds can vote. These groups do not need any kind of "privilege" to vote.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

...

To refresh, here are the groups that can not be denied or abridged the right to vote:

15th on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th on account of sex
24th by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
26th on account of age.

...

Again, I'm talking about explicit language, not assumed rights.

Adding a link to Fairvote.org: Right to Vote Amendment - FairVote

Thanks for reminding me of the 15th. An interesting thought arises from the exact wording of

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.
​

of the 15th and that is that the EXACT FORM of "servitude" is NOT laid out, and one other term for "incarceration" is "penal SERVITUDE".

That means that an "arguable case" can be made that, since the EXACT FORM of "servitude" is NOT laid out, then the 15th includes ALL forms of involuntary servitude and that would make ANY restriction on voting based on a history of "penal SERVITUDE" (even current incarceration) unconstitutional.

You might note that, in Canada, "felons" who have been released from prison have had the right to vote "from time immemorial" and that the Supreme Court (in Sauvé v Canada) ruled that, under Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
​

even those currently incarcerated had that right.

[Please note that the Supreme Court did not GIVE prisoners the right to vote, rather it determined that prisoners HAD the right to vote. (Yes, I know that that is a picky distinction, but it is actually a very real one. The court's role is NOT to MAKE UP the law, but rather to ENUNCIATE what the law is.)]

PS - The Constitution of the United States of America has no equivalent clause to Clause 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which I am well aware that you know) and any interpretation that there is an American equivalent to clause 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes from "judicial rulings" (which are those things that the people who don't agree with them refer to as "judge made law handed out by activist judges" and which are those things that the people who do agree with them refer to as "sound judicial constitutional interpretations").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Again with the bald-faced lie! :lamo

Please provide a link to the place in the Constitution of the United States of America where it says

Every citizen of the United States of America has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Representatives or of members of the Senate, of of a State Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
​

Any interpretation that there is an American equivalent to that comes from "judicial rulings" (which are those things that the people who don't agree with them refer to as "judge made law handed out by activist judges" and which are those things that the people who do agree with them refer to as "sound judicial constitutional interpretations").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not only that, slavery is not abolished anywhere in the three articles nor in the Bill of Rights! Therefore, by your idiotic logic, slavery is Constitutional! :lamo

Slavery WAS 100% "constitutional" until the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

After that time, slavery BECAME "unconstitutional".

Immediately upon the repeal of the 13th Amendment, slavery WOULD AGAIN BECOME 100% "constitutional".

Don't embarrass yourself like that, TU. You're better than that. Read the damn Amendments.

Please pay attention to the fact that time actually passes and that what was once true may no longer be true and the fact that what is true now might not have been true previously.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You realize this is not 1789 anymore, right? Blacks can vote. Women can vote. Eighteen-year olds can vote. These groups do not need any kind of "privilege" to vote.

So what?

Your position was "The RIGHT to vote is America's foundation." and I pointed out that, in reality, "The RIGHT _(for "The Right People)_ to vote is America's foundation.".

Despite the widening of the definition of "The Right People" (which, to the Founding Fathers meant, "Us and those who are as rich as us"), "America's foundation" is still "The RIGHT _(for "The Right People)_ to vote".

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Again with the bald-faced lie! :lamo

You either struggle with basic reading comprehension on simple definitions. Which is it? Do you need to work on reading the phrase, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote"? Or do you require a definition of the word "right" which you refuse to look up on your own?

You even admitted that voting is a right yourself:



So which is it, Ali? Did you misspeak when you said that voting a right, or did you misspeak when you said that voting is not a right? You have confused yourself so much with your lying that you cannot even keep your lies straight! :laughat:

Fair vote and I disagree. Shame you aren’t clear on an explicit right and an implied right. Name calling by you is meaningless, yet you keep trying. I guess you choose not to read the full sentence when reading the Constitution. The alternative would just be a realization that you are wasting my time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AliHajiSheik]

There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

about "the right to vote". The closest that you get are Amendment 19

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 sex.
​

and Amendment 26

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
​

Using the legal interpretation rule of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.) that means that "the right to vote" could well be restricted on some grounds other than age and sex.

However, Amendment 14 states

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
​

and that might well mean that any "restriction on felons voting" would have to be at the federal level with any state level restrictions that are in excess of federal restrictions being unconstitutional.

If that is the case, then, it would likely be allowable for states to establish restrictions on voting for "state level" offices (which might well include voting on the selection of members of the Electoral College) but could NOT impose any restrictions in excess of the federal restrictions on voting for "national level" offices (which means voting on the selection of Senators and Representatives).

You left out this clause of the 14th Amendment: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property”. As for the rest of the Amendment, it mentions privileges not rights. I think that is the central conflict in this thread. I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

Fair vote and I disagree. Shame you aren’t clear on an explicit right and an implied right. Name calling by you is meaningless, yet you keep trying. I guess you choose not to read the full sentence when reading the Constitution. The alternative would just be a realization that you are wasting my time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know, I know, reading is hard. :lol: Maybe if you keep reading the phrase over and over again, you just might finally get it.

Repeat it to yourself: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote"

 

[bradt99]

OMG how awful, requiring felons to pay their court fees. My gosh, what is this world coming to?:roll: And you liberals wonder why Florida didn't vote for the idiot Gillium for governor.

 

[bradt99]

You know race baiting might work in California and New York as a democrat candidate, but it won't work in Texas or Florida. Again, this just proves liberals are out of touch with everyday Americans. Gilluim accused Desantis of being racist without NO proof!! He attacked the mans character and Desantis should've sued him. Even John Morgan who is a progressive in Florida can't stand Gillium. It's time for blacks to grow up.

 

[Phys251]

Slavery WAS 100% "constitutional" until the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

After that time, slavery BECAME "unconstitutional".

Immediately upon the repeal of the 13th Amendment, slavery WOULD AGAIN BECOME 100% "constitutional".



Please pay attention to the fact that time actually passes and that what was once true may no longer be true and the fact that what is true now might not have been true previously.

No ****. Now tell me exactly why the multiple-times-repeated phrase in the United States Constitution "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" does not mean "the right of citizens of the United States to vote."

Two people have already tried that here and failed miserably. Would you like to be the third?