Sanders faces heat for saying people should be able to vote from prison

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who also appeared on a CNN town hall Monday night, said he believes states should re-enfranchise felons, but only after they’re released from prison. “Part of the punishment when you are convicted of a crime and you’re incarcerated is you lose certain rights; you lose your freedom,” Buttigieg said. “And I think during that period, it does not make sense to have an exception for the right to vote.”

I have to agree more with Buttigieg than with Sanders.

It was quite shocking to see that Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote while incarcerated.

Should the incarcerated be allowed to vote?

Like yourself I agree with Mr. Buttigiegs line of thinking.

The notion of someone along the lines of a Charles Manson (was he still amongst us) being able to cast a vote is somewhat un-nerving. Once you have served your time, that right should be reinstated in my opinion.

So, does that re-enfranchisement include their right to purchase a gun?

If it was a gun offense, that's pretty stupid to allow them to have guns again.  

I cannot speak for other States but a convicted felon cannot legally purchase a gun in CT.

I know, its a Federal prohibition.    Therefore ALL states do not allow felons to own guns.

That's what would be re-enfranchised.   The ability to own/buy a gun.   That is what i was asking.

That is an interesting question. The right to vote is a civil liberty and if the federal government is going to re-enfranchise felons after they have completed their sentence then I would imagine a successful court case to push to re-enfranchise all civil liberties at a federal level.

So, does that re-enfranchisement include their right to purchase a gun?

Why are you trying to argue that a gun in the hands of a convicted felon is the same thing as being able to cast a ballot twice a year?

'Why are you trying to argue that a gun in the hands of a convicted felon is the same thing as being able to cast a ballot twice a year?'

It makes no sense whatsoever.  That's probably why.  

I didn't see what is so important about owning a gun unless they are afraid of their fellow citizens? Do they really think that their gun is going to pose a threat to the US military or the cops who have no compulsions about shooting people and then lying to cover it up? These problems are more effectively solved at the ballot box then their wild west fantasy of having a gunfight in the streets. 

 People need to read the words of former Chief Justice Warren Burger on the 2nd amendment.

Because the Chief Justice never said anything about the Second Amendment when he was actually on the Supreme Court. (Half a dozen Supreme Court decisions affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right.)

Nor did Mr. Burger write anything about the Second Amendment in scholarly legal or historical journal. (The scholarly consensus is virtually unanimous that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right).

No, the Chief Justice wrote about the Second Amendment in Parade magazine, in a short article in January 1990. (A shorter version was later printed in some newspaper editorials.) This article represents, in a sense, the high-water mark for anti-Second Amendment "scholarship." Because the gun prohibition lobbies will continue to promote the late Mr. Burger's "research" about the Second Amendment.

Most of the late Mr. Burger's Parade essay was devoted to the historical background of the Second Amendment. He offered a useful and generally accurate history of the Second Amendment, and explained that the authors of the Second Amendment believed that America should rely for its defense on "a well-regulated militia" of individual citizens, rather than upon a professional uniformed standing army.

Justice Burger then stated that today, "sadly, we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a 'militia' by way of the National Guard..." Here, Justice Burger's reasoning stumbled.

First of all, the National Guard is plainly not the "militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment. The Guard was created by Congress' war power, not by its militia power. National Guard weapons are directly owned by the federal government, which means that the Guard firearms cannot be the "arms" protected from federal interference by the Second Amendment.

More fundamentally, the National Guard is a uniformed, elite force. A "select militia" was precisely what the authors of the Second Amendment intended to avoid; they instead wanted a militia made up of all able-bodied males.

And why is it so clear that "we have no choice" but to maintain a large standing army? Except during wartime (Cold War included), the United States has never had a large standing army. Many reasonable people believe that a first-class navy and air force and nuclear capability are sufficient, without need for a huge standing army, in a world without Soviet imperialism.

Chief Justice Burger argued that the Second Amendment is obsolete because we "need" a large standing army, rather than a well-armed citizenry. Who says that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is national defense, and not also personal defense? And why is the citizen militia obsolete? The citizen militia was called forth for home defense in WWII in Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland, and Virginia.

Because both are civil liberties. 

Civil liberties concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted or inferred through the years by legislatures or the courts.

civilrights.findlaw

I tend to agree that allowing a felon to purchase a gun is not a good idea. But like any other plan the devil is in the details. If the federal government allows some civil liberties to be re-enfranchised then I can see a possibly successful federal lawsuit for all civil liberties.

I don't believe it's a civil right to own a DEADLY WEAPON

I don't believe it's a civil right to own a DEADLY WEAPON

But it is.  The 2nd Amendment gives us that right. 

If the federal government allows some civil liberties to be re-enfranchised then I can see a possibly successful federal lawsuit for all civil liberties.

See 3.1.7 below.  Interesting.  I can see how it could be argued that it's all or none.

Because both are civil liberties.  Civil liberties concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted or inferred through the years by legislatures or the courts.

The right to own a gun is not absolute. The 2nd amendment was not written to be interpreted in the way that they NRA claim if you invest the effort to read what former Chief Justice Warren Burger has said. Not even conservative extremist Antonin Scalia agreed with that idea.  That amendment was created for self-defense of the country, as in the National Guard, and not the inherent right of every citizen to own a firearm. 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

I agree that there's a world of difference between walking into a voting booth and walking down the street armed. All I'm trying to say is that the conversation needs to cover all parts and be carefully worked out. I can easily see challenges in court over one civil liberty being restored and not others. There's already precedent in Federal law about restoring a felons 2nd amendment rights if the state restores certain other liberties.  See 3.1.7 below.. 

I agree that there's a world of difference between walking into a voting booth and walking down the street armed. All I'm trying to say is that the conversation needs to cover all parts and be carefully worked out. I can easily see challenges in court over one civil liberty being restored and not others. There's already precedent in Federal law about restoring a felons 2nd amendment rights if the state restores certain other liberties.  See 3.1.7 below.. 

The 2nd amendment was never written to be absolute as it has been reinterpreted by the NRA. If you read it is focused on gun ownership as the civil defense of the country and not the individual right to own a firearm for private use.  There is also a black letter statement that it is to be well regulated. 

 The writers on the Constitution didn't plan on a standing peacetime army that we have now. so we cannot both have the largest standing army in the world and then also claim that private gun ownership if for civil defense as a well-regulated militia.  To be part of that civil defense militia means it is to be well trained and not just 30 open-carry yahoos with a common grudge strolling around the parking lot of Ralphs or Safeway looking for a fight. 

Do you own one of those deadly cars? or do you walk everywhere? Just saying.... ANYTHING can be a deadly weapon... my pistol is in the same place I put it months ago... stupid deadly asshole hasn't moved an inch, but my car does every GD day. And it is a civil right to own a gun, so long as you are a good guy and don't go around advertising it in your waist band to be a bully.

just saying

'But it is.  The 2nd Amendment gives us that right.'

No, not really.  

I've been very clear about that in this thread.   Feel free to read it

Bernie shot himself in the foot with that stupid remark and then inserted it into this mouth.

He will never be able to walk or talk that display of dementia away. He lost his chance to grab the gold ring right there, for saying that, and for  many other reasons. The old asshole is so out of touch with the average American. Talk about the campaign ads

I guess the old goat is desperate for the terrorist killer and pedophile vote.

As part of their punishment, criminals do indeed lost some civil rights, and for good reasons.

Once they have served their time, those rights should be restored

We send people to prison because they have forfeited their right to participate in society. Why would that not include the vote?

Agreed. Regardless of crime committed...they have temporarily (in most cases) lost their freedom and the privileges that society enjoys.

Agreed. Regardless of crime committed...they have temporarily (in most cases) lost their freedom and the privileges that society enjoys.

Voting isn't a privilege to be taken away as punitive punishment or to be earned by a test of knowledge/skills. It is a constitutional right of all citizens at the age of 18, so the legal bar is set much higher before it can be limited.  This is the critical difference between a privilege and a constitutional right. 

So is the right to bear arms, yet that is stripped from them as well, even after they have paid their debt. 

Again, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees a person the right to vote. The amendments you refer to prohibit the Federal Government and States from barring anyone from voting based on age (18 or above), or barring them from voting based on race or sex. It also prohibits any type of tax placed on voting.

What the constitution does not prohibit the Federal Government or States from doing is barring anyone who is incarcerated from voting.

Voting is a privilege...not a constitutional right.

Voting is a privilege...not a constitutional right.

That is just such a crazy statement (and  you know there are others who will argue on this) that I had to look it up.  And son of a biscuit you are correct.

While the U.S. Constitution bans the restriction of voting based on race, sex and age, it does not explicitly and affirmatively state that all U.S. citizens have a right to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in 2000 that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors for president.

son of a biscuit

Giving up cussing? Just teasing

There are probably many who are looking it up...and walking away saying something a little stronger.

We've all heard 'right to vote' often enough that surely there's something in the constitution. Instead, we learn that the constitutional amendments only refer to restrictions based on race, sex and age (over 18)...oh, and let's not forget tax (poll tax).

Learn something every day

So is the right to bear arms, yet that is stripped from them as well, even after they have paid their debt. 

That should be determined on a case by case basis after the parole period, based on their crimes and their mental state. Those people who have committed murder, bank robbery, or other violent crimes (rape, etc) should never have that right. 

And that is what the discussion has been about all along.  The right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech..  these are all civil liberties. From the standpoint of a civil liberty these are all the same.

If federal law is going to be changed to restore any civil liberties to a felon then I can see successful court cases to get other civil liberties restored as well. 

That should be determined on a case by case basis after the parole period, based on their crimes and their mental state. Those people who have committed murder, bank robbery, or other violent crimes (rape, etc) should never have that right.

I agree with you. What I'd like you to do now is explain why you feel differently about guns than you do about voting. Do you want an incarcerated pedophile voting on something that, should it be defeated, would make access to children easier for them or perhaps reduce the penalty pedophiles may face? 

Why not treat the vote the same way as you feel gun rights should be treated? On a case by case basis, after they're out of prison?

I agree with you. What I'd like you to do now is explain why you feel differently about guns than you do about voting. Do you want an incarcerated pedophile voting on something that, should it be defeated, would make access to children easier for them or perhaps reduce the penalty pedophiles may face?  Why not treat the vote the same way as you feel gun rights should be treated? On a case by case basis, after they're out of prison?

You cannot kill 10 people in a minute with a loaded ballot.  I disagree with the current reading of the 2nd Amendment, especially after the Heller decision.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

.

People should read and understand the statement of former Chief Justice Earl Warren on the 2nd Amdnement. 

Somehow I doubt that many people will agree with a pedophile, plus we have judges that can throw out or restrict ballot measures that they might support. 

 I don't like the ideas of pedophile but I will defend their free speech to say so, just as I will defend the free speech of Nazis, the Klan, and Fred Phelp's church. 

Should the incarcerated be allowed to vote?

Love the question and thanks to Sanders answering a question from someone at a town hall, right from his gut, every democratic candidate will now most likely be asked the same question!

Love the question and thanks to Sanders answering a question from someone at a town hall, right from his gut, every democratic candidate will now most likely be asked the same question!

Why shouldn't people who are incarcerated be permitted to vote?  Is the right to vote only given to people who you support their actions? 

Maybe we should treat the right of free speech in the same way that you seem to support treating the right to vote, in that that only people who you agree with the message have free speech rights. 

Why shouldn't people who are incarcerated be permitted to vote? 

I'm not debating that argument. I leave that to the American people.


Maybe we should treat the right of free speech in the same way that you seem to support treating the right to vote

Maybe we should treat second amendment right the same way

I'm not debating that argument. I leave that to the American people.

That would be an example of tyranny of the majority, which is what the Bill of Rights was created to prohibit.  Our rights are not up for a vote by the majority because of they were then only the majority would have rights and that would be neither equal or be a constitutional right. 

Maybe we should treat second amendment right the same way

The Second Amendment was never meant to be an absolute right to possess a weapon for private use. If you read it specifies a well-regulated militia.

You should really try selling that to SCOTUS.

It already has been.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, said the idea that there was an individual right to bear arms was "a fraud." If he were writing the Bill of Rights now, he said in 1991, "There wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment."

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

But that all changed with some scholarly work and cases brought by gun rights advocates.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court said there is an individual constitutional right to have a handgun in one's home for self-protection. Two years later, in a second case, the court made clear that its decision applied to the states as well as the federal government.

Not an absolute right

The court has never said, however, that the right to bear arms in this country is absolute.

In declaring an individual right to bear arms, the court made clear that there are limitations on that right, just as there are limitations on other constitutional rights.

There is a First Amendment right to free speech, but someone can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. And a person can't parade loudly through a residential area at 2 a.m. either.

Because the Chief Justice never said anything about the Second Amendment when he was actually on the Supreme Court. (Half a dozen Supreme Court decisions affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right.)

Nor did Mr. Burger write anything about the Second Amendment in scholarly legal or historical journal. (The scholarly consensus is virtually unanimous that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right).

No, the Chief Justice wrote about the Second Amendment in Parade magazine, in a short article in January 1990. (A shorter version was later printed in some newspaper editorials.) This article represents, in a sense, the high-water mark for anti-Second Amendment "scholarship." Because the gun prohibition lobbies will continue to promote the late Mr. Burger's "research" about the Second Amendment.

Most of the late Mr. Burger's Parade essay was devoted to the historical background of the Second Amendment. He offered a useful and generally accurate history of the Second Amendment, and explained that the authors of the Second Amendment believed that America should rely for its defense on "a well-regulated militia" of individual citizens, rather than upon a professional uniformed standing army.

Justice Burger then stated that today, "sadly, we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a 'militia' by way of the National Guard..." Here, Justice Burger's reasoning stumbled.

First of all, the National Guard is plainly not the "militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment. The Guard was created by Congress' war power, not by its militia power. National Guard weapons are directly owned by the federal government, which means that the Guard firearms cannot be the "arms" protected from federal interference by the Second Amendment.

More fundamentally, the National Guard is a uniformed, elite force. A "select militia" was precisely what the authors of the Second Amendment intended to avoid; they instead wanted a militia made up of all able-bodied males.

And why is it so clear that "we have no choice" but to maintain a large standing army? Except during wartime (Cold War included), the United States has never had a large standing army. Many reasonable people believe that a first-class navy and air force and nuclear capability are sufficient, without need for a huge standing army, in a world without Soviet imperialism.

Chief Justice Burger argued that the Second Amendment is obsolete because we "need" a large standing army, rather than a well-armed citizenry. Who says that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is national defense, and not also personal defense? And why is the citizen militia obsolete? The citizen militia was called forth for home defense in WWII in Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland, and Virginia.

And even if the Second Amendment were entirely obsolete, it still does not follow that the right to bear arms can be ignored. After all, the Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all cases involving more than twenty dollars. Back in 1791, twenty dollars was a lot of money; today it's pocket change. Nevertheless, courts must (and do) enforce the 7th Amendment fully. If changed circumstances have made the 7th or 2d Amendments obsolete, the proper course of action is to repeal them, and not, as Chief Justice Burger implied, to ignore them while they are still the law of the land.

That would be an example of tyranny of the majority, which is what the Bill of Rights was created to prohibit.

I hate to break it to you, but when people are convicted of heinous crimes they lose their rights. Thus they are in prison!


The Second Amendment was never meant to be an absolute right to possess a weapon for private use.

Really?  A lot of people would disagree with that interpretation.

“I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy

Bernie's been an elected government official since 1981 - that's 37 years - and he STILL doesn't know that the USA's form of government is called a constitutional republic.

he STILL doesn't know that the USA's form of government is called a constitutional republic.

I dunno.  It could be that he is speaking in terms that US citizens seem to understand on some level.

Headlines usually proclaim that the US wants to spread "democracy" around the world.  When was the last time the headlines claimed that the US wanted to spread "constitutional republics" around the world?

I dunno.  It could be that he is speaking in terms that US citizens seem to understand on some level.

Headlines usually proclaim that the US wants to spread "democracy" around the world.  When was the last time the headlines claimed that the US wanted to spread "constitutional republics" around the world?

There's a clear distinction between a democracy and a constitutional republic. At its root, "democracy" is loosely described as rule by the people. Yes, we in the US are the people, but we are united, elect our officials, and abide by laws set forth in our federal constitution.

If we didn't have our constitution, the EC wouldn't exist. Left wing politicians and their media are very vocal about abolishing the EC in the 2020 election cycle, thereby enabling CA, NY, and a couple of other states to decide who the next POTUS will be. 

We are actually in practice a democratic republic. That does not affect the fact that we have a constitution and an EC. I am not in favor of removing the EC, but I do think that it should be a proportional EC, not a winner takes all EC. 

I'm  a big fan of the Congressional District majority method.  

Two electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote and one electoral vote for the winner of each Congressional District.

Maine and Nebraska use that system already.

I'm all for re-enfranchisement of felons but only after they prove they can become lawful, productive citizens.  

Not sure of a time-frame but i would think staying out of trouble  for at least a year or two might be a nice start.

That seems like a decent idea to me.  As to your gun question above - I would say that depends on the type of crime they were convicted of.  Being able to vote doesn't threaten anyone else, but having someone who was convicted of a violent crime being able to own a gun is another matter.  I don't think it makes sense to automatically deny all felons of the right to own guns, though, since not all felonies are anywhere near equal.

Here's my point.  

Either society feels they are rehabilitated or not.   My feeling would be if society feels they are rehabilitated enough to vote, which IS a huge responsibility, they are to own a gun as well.

Picking and choosing what does and doesn't get re-enfranchised is a very slippery slope IMO.

I've seen too much to believe that everyone is rehabilitated, but I don't think it matters as much when it comes to voting, because voting doesn't present a physical danger to others.  Half of the non-felon voters don't bother to take voting as a huge responsibility as it is.

I agree that it's a slippery slope, but then, we already deny people some of their rights once they're convicted felons, so continuing to pick and choose doesn't seem any worse to me.  Certain felonies and certain mental illnesses should disqualify people from owning guns, IMO.  My nephew, as one example, should NEVER own a gun. 

I disagree that voting isn't a huge responsibility.   It is IMO.   At least as much or more that gun ownership in some ways.    I'm not arguing with you in concept related to some  felons but one can argue those people would NEVER make it past a one or two year period without getting trouble again.    Making it a moot point.

Its just not as simple as flipping a switch.   Not all gun related felonies are created equal.

OH, I agree that voting is a huge responsibility.  To me, the difference is the lack of potential for physical harm.  If we denied the right to vote for everyone who didn't treat it as a huge responsibility, we'd have a pretty small pool of eligible voters, felons or not.

And regarding the guns - their getting in trouble again is going to cause trauma to others, if not physical harm, so I'd prefer for them not to have that (legal) option.  If they're bound and determined, they'll get illegal guns, of course.  And I'm not speaking of just gun-related violent felonies - take domestic violence as an example. 

I realize we are talking about people's rights, so that makes it more of a conundrum. 

'And regarding the guns - their getting in trouble again is going to cause trauma to others, if not physical harm, so I'd prefer for them not to have that (legal) option.  If they're bound and determined, they'll get illegal guns, of course.  And I'm not speaking of just gun-related violent felonies - take domestic violence as an example.'

Agree 1000% - someone with gun related charges, domestic violence charges, stalking, harrassing, etc., etc., etc. SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO LEGALLY OWN A GUN AGAIN.  

Vote away.  but NO GUNS.  

You're making interesting arguments regarding the restoration a felon's right to own a firearm. I found this article to be interesting...States vary in restoration of the right to own a gun. Here's the loophole around the federal law...

If a state restores a convicted felon's civil rights -- including the right to vote, serve on juries and hold public office -- then the federal ban no longer holds [sources: Luo ; 18 USC § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) ]. However, if a state restores a felon's gun rights, but not the other listed rights, then possessing a gun remains a federal crime, and the feds can arrest that person and charge him or her with possession [source: Luo ].

So, in Maine and Vermont...do incarcerated felons serve on juries or hold public office? (I know...they probably don't.)

So it's all civil rights or none in some states?  Interesting.,

We can agree to disagree on the voting thing being better or worse.

That said, many of them used a gun illegally to get into trouble in the first place.   Do you really think not allowing them to purchase or own a gun legally is going to make a difference to them?   I don't.   Not in the least.

The people who will be helped are the ones who have the honest intention of being lawful, productive citizens.   After a reasonable period of time not getting back into trouble, why shouldn't they be allowed?  That would be pure dis-enfranchisement of deserving people if they aren't.   Plain and simple

Gun ownership is not part and parcel with re-entering society and becoming a productive member thereof.

Neither is voting.   No matter how hard you try to rationalize that it is.

Both are constitutionally protected rights.   Both are forfeit if convicted of a felony.

In that regard its not different at all actually.

Interesting article.

Thanks!

Fro the most part, no, it isn't going to make a difference.  It might in some cases, such as those convicted of domestic violence, or those who aren't premeditating a crime.

After a reasonable period of time not getting back into trouble, why shouldn't they be allowed?  That would be pure dis-enfranchisement of deserving people if they aren't.   Plain and simple

You make a good point.  I suppose I'm skeptical when it comes to people who commit certain crimes.  They may have paid their debt to society, but ... the 19 year old who killed my friend's dad (police officer, in the line of duty) has probably gotten out by now, but I don't think he should EVER own a gun.  And I suppose when I think about it, I don't give a crap if he has lost his right to vote forever, either.  Not the most compassionate way to look at it, I realize.  But while he may have paid his debt to society, he can never give back what he took from a teenager and her family.

Like i said earlier, in concept and for many felons, i agree with you 100% but the devil is in the details.   And as previously mentioned not all gun related felonies are the same.   I've had my share of experience in this arena as well.   Family members, friends, acquaintances  who have been/are LEO's, Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys.   I have a healthy distrust of many people in those jobs base on that experience.

Like i said, the devil is in the details.   And sometimes the devil isn't the felon but the people doing the  arresting/judging/prosecuting.   Nice thing about constitutional rights.     They usually deny people in positions of power the ability to remove them.   We need to be very careful of the power we give those folks in that regard.

Agreed. 

Yep I hear you.    Like I said, the devil is in the details.     The difference as I see it is being a teacher isn’t a specifically numerated right.    Makes it easier to limit in my mind.

Either society feels they are rehabilitated or not. 

That's the thing. We are NOT rehabilitating felons. We are punishing them. Were we actually engaged in making these people productive members of society I'd whole heatedly agree with your assessment of all rights being restored after time and probation. 

I can imagine a Sheriff campaigning for votes in the jail he runs 

Lol, if a Sheriff in this area runs on that premise i guarantee you this much.

He/she will likely get the least amount of votes in county history.

Having taken a cursory look at U.S. imprisonment stats, in particular the felon rates of violent crimes, seems like a real conversation is in order. 

Not hoping on the Sanders wagon, yet not dismissing his thoughts on the subject area. 

Conversations, we need conversations.

Agreed...conversations regarding the subject is needed.

When a person chooses to commit a crime, should they then be afforded the right to choose local, state and federal representatives?

Considering less than half of all incarcerations are for the violent offenses as Graham describes, I don't view all imprisoned with a broad brush.

Incarceration doesn't negate citizenship or necessarily the rights associated with that status.  Hence a broader discussion required without  politicization, not an election issue for me.  

So, only 'half' should be able to vote from behind bars...because they chose to break the law...but they weren't violent?

Interpretation of my view, isn't a conversation.  Never implied half should be given the right to vote, only pointing out the political bullshit surrounding the issue.

A comprehensive look at  incarcerations ~ federal, state, local, et al is warranted in relationship to individual rights...IMO. 

Eligible voters are jailed for lack of bail funds.  Their guilt or innocence is yet to be determined.  I believe they should be given every opportunity to vote.

Eligible voters are jailed for lack of bail funds.  Their guilt or innocence is yet to be determined.  I believe they should be given every opportunity to vote.

I wouldn't consider someone who has not been tried and convicted to be part of the current discussion...rather those who have been convicted and sentenced. Although, those who find themselves jailed when it's time to vote, will find it difficult to get to their polling locations.

I'm not really seeing any political bullshit here. Sanders brought it up...others (politicians) have given their opinions and we're not discussing the candidates but rather the question of whether those incarcerated should be allowed the privilege to vote. Narrowing things down to crime committed, length of stay behind bars, etc. - to me, would be a form of discrimination. No one group, regardless of crime has their freedom. They are all behind bars.

This is my reference to political bullshit.

Bernie Sanders, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, just made it clear he wants convicted terrorists, sex offenders, and murderers to vote from prison,” the Republican National Committee said in an email to supporters shortly after Sanders’s statement that included a clip of the remarks.

“The Boston Marathon Bomber killed three people and injured 280 more,” the email said. “Bernie’s concern? That he gets his absentee ballot.”

Sanders gives his position and the piling on begins.  The RNC, or anyone for that matter,  could easily respond with their reasoned opinion yet in our hyper-political divide have the need to come out swinging.

I'm weary of the decisiveness perpetrated by all parties, it tears at the fabric of our nation.  

Comments like that are to be expected. I'm sure Sanders expected them. Hence the title of the seeded article. I don't give much attention to anything super partisan and focus on reason. The main reason I seeded the article was to ask what everyone thought of allowing the incarcerated the privilege of voting.

We can and do have rational conversations around here about subjects like these without being hyper partisan.

What the hell for? Is that the key thing that's been missing from making us a better country? Not enough incarcerated felons are voting?

I have no issue with felons voting after they have done their time. In jail, I'm not so sure of. I guess it would depend on what the charges were. But if we think about it, jail is meant as a punishment, so removal of a right when you are there seems in order. When you come out, then I think it's fine to vote. 

I have no issue with felons voting after they have done their time. In jail, I'm not so sure of. I guess it would depend on what the charges were. But if we think about it, jail is meant as a punishment, so removal of a right when you are there seems in order. When you come out, then I think it's fine to vote. 

Why would their crimes possibly make a difference whether they can vote?  They have religious rights in prison that happen every day, so how can we take away their right to vote, that would occupy 5 minutes twice a year? 

Why are people so eager to take away the rights of others? Shouldn't we instead be defending the constitutional rights of others if we also value our own? Who do you think will come to your aid to defend your rights if you do not defend the same constitutional rights for other people?  If we allow the state to take the rights away from others what makes you think that they will not turn on you and try to take yours away once that legal precedent has been set? What happened to the idea that we are an interconnected community/society or do people not see themselves as part of a much larger group anymore. That is a foreign concept to me, even if I am a loner. 

 This is like some people who are eager to attack the pay of people, especially people in unions and civil servants. Do they think that lowering the pay of others will somehow raise their own?

If you most of those votes went to Republicans would you be so eager to have incarcerated criminals vote.

In the meantime, there are laws on the books that that specify that inmates lose their right to vote.

Have any of those been found to be unconstitutional? 

If it's not broke, it doesn't need fixing.

In the meantime, Bernie blew away any chance he might have had.

If you most of those votes went to Republicans would you be so eager to have incarcerated criminals vote.

In the meantime, there are laws on the books that that specify that inmates lose their right to vote.

Have any of those been found to be unconstitutional? 

If it's not broke, it doesn't need fixing.

In the meantime, Bernie blew away any chance he might have had.

 

I don't care how they vote, despite the fact that I am a progressive, just as I don't care about a person religious beliefs, despite being a atheist, or their freedom of speech that might be at odds with my own.  I only care that our rights are not limited by the state as a punitive punishment. Our religious and free speech views are only limited when they trample the rights of others, so why should we allow the bar on voting to be set lower?

 Maybe instead of defending  rights when the message is what you agree with you instead might want to start to defend the rights of others unilaterally.

Why would their crimes possibly make a difference whether they can vote?

Because a long time ago society has decided they lose that right because of the crimes they committed.   It's not anymore complicated than that.   One can debate whether the punishment fits the crime or not but one can not argue the precedence of the matter.    Its called punishment for a reason.

  They have religious rights in prison that happen every day, so how can we take away their right to vote, that would occupy 5 minutes twice a year?

See above

  Why are people so eager to take away the rights of others?

That's a great question.   I watch people here every day eager to take away one right they don't agree with and fast to defend other rights they do agree with.   The rationalizations used in doing so are usually vast and hypocritical.

 This is like some people who are eager to attack the pay of people, especially people in unions and civil servants. Do they think that lowering the pay of others will somehow raise their own?

??????   Wow ... now that's quite a stretch.

why should we allow the bar on voting to be set lower?

Actually, those who broke the law and found themselves without the freedoms we all enjoy...did it to themselves. They made that choice.

Because a long time ago society has decided they lose that right because of the crimes they committed.   It's not anymore complicated than that.   One can debate whether the punishment fits the crime or not but one can not argue the precedence of the matter.    Its called punishment for a reason.

They are locked behind bars because of their actions. Why should we take away their voice to choose their representatives when they are still citizens? Do you also want to take away their citizenship as a punitive punishment?  Why do you seek to give the state even more power to punish people when most people claim to be small government conservatives?  It appears to me that people are basing these decisions on their emotions.

That's a great question.   I watch people here every day eager to take away one right they don't agree with and fast to defend other rights they do agree with.   The rationalizations used in doing so are usually vast and hypocritical.

What rights have people here tried to take away from you or anyone else? 

Actually, those who broke the law and found themselves without the freedoms we all enjoy...did it to themselves. They made that choice.

They are behind bars because of their crimes.

The question that I asked and you did not answer was why do you want to set the legal standard even lower for the state to take away our constitutional rights?  If you allow the state to do it to them what is then stopping the state to do the same to you?   

Voting is not a constitutional right...it is a privilege.

Voting is not a constitutional right...it is a privilege.

The 26th amendment says that you are wrong. Every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote. 

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2. “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

wrong. that is a negative charter against government, not an affirmative right established by the Constitution or the 26th Amendment (see my post 14)

Read it again...

'shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.'

That does not say every citizen age 18 and above has a right to vote. It says the Federal Government and any State cannot stop you from voting if you are 18 or over.

That does not say every citizen age 18 and above has a right to vote. It says the Federal Government and any State cannot stop you from voting if you are 18 or over.

Why doesn't ever 18-year-old citizen have the right to vote?  Are there also literacy tests or the requirement of a GED/diploma that 18-year-olds must achieve?

You have yet to explain what is the reason to ban people who are incarcerated from voting, other than taking away the right to vote as a punitive punishment.  To deny someone a constitutional right has a much higher constitutional standard than what a privilege that must be earned and you have yet to explain what that is when it comes to voting?  We do not deny people in prison their free speech, religious rights, and the rights 5th through the 8th Amendment, so what is the legally sufficient reason to deny people the right to cast a ballot twice a year? The only possible answer is denying them the right to vote as a punitive punishment.

wrong. that is a negative charter against government, not an affirmative right established by the Constitution or the 26th Amendment (see my post 14)

Why isn't taking away a citizen's right to vote isn't also an abuse of government power?  Can the government forbid them from exercising their religious beliefs behind bars, or is that different? 

You have yet to explain what is the reason to ban people who are incarcerated from voting, other than taking away the right to vote as a punitive punishment. 

Actually, you have yet to actual read any of my posts...if you had, you would realize that their inability to vote was their choice. They chose to break the law, the consequences of their choice removes them from society and the privileges enjoyed by those who choose to obey the law. Simple.

Why doesn't ever 18-year-old citizen have the right to vote?

Voting is a privilege. Those who have that privilege cannot have it taken away based on age (18 and over), race or sex...per the constitution.

They are locked behind bars because of their actions. Why should we take away their voice to choose their representatives when they are still citizens?

Again, because society has decided that it be so.    It’s not that complicated.

Do you also want to take away their citizenship as a punitive punishment?

Never heard anyone suggest such a thing until today.    That’s an interesting stretch of a given condition.

Why do you seek to give the state even more power to punish people when most people claim to be small government conservatives?

I don’t.    We elect people to pass laws.    Laws of crime and punishment.    Why do liberals want to give criminals, charged under those existing laws, more rights?

  It appears to me that people are basing these decisions on their emotions.

I agree.    I see many liberals doing that every day.

What rights have people here tried to take away from you or anyone else?

You know thats a stupid question.    People here suggest just such things regularly.    And I have no doubt they would follow through on such suggestions if they had the power to do so.    But they don’t .... too bad, so sad for them.

After they have done their time, let them vote. During their sentence? Nah.

the thought of the democrats stopping by prisons to garner votes is kind of funny.

cheers

Your inability to discuss an issue without making it all about your hatred of liberals is not very funny - it's pathetic.

Luckily most of your fellow conservatives are able to have an actual conversation and discuss the pros and cons of an issue.

Like these "Haters" who will never have a say-so????

No offense intended, but can we please keep it to a discussion of whether the incarcerated should be allowed the privilege of voting without political mumbo jumbo?

Thanks much!

Sanders and whoever else takes that stand is going to get crushed.

Their opponents are going to eat them alive on it.

the pros and cons of an issue.

the pros of politicians pandering to cons while they are still in jail cannot be taken seriously.

not being able to vote while in jail is not cruel or unusual 

Americans are so terribly ignorant about the Constitution. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTION. This fact has been observed by some on the left in the past few years.

“ The Bill of Rights, as the name implies, lists a wide variety of privileges of citizenship that cannot be taken from Americans without due process. You have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to vote, however, isn’t mentioned.

By Steve Benen, Producer of Rachel Maddow Show

Matt Yglesias had  a good piece  on this yesterday.

When the constitution was enacted it did not include a right to vote for the simple reason that the Founders didn’t think most people should vote. Voting laws, at the time, mostly favored white, male property-holders, and the rules varied sharply from state to state. But over the first half of the nineteenth century, the idea of popular democracy took root across the land. Property qualifications were universally abolished, and the franchise became the key marker of white male political equality. Subsequent activists sought to further expand the franchise, by barring discrimination on the basis of race (the 15th Amendment) and gender (the 19th) — establishing the norm that all citizens should have the right to vote.

But this norm is just a norm. There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination. A law requiring you to cut your hair short before voting, or dye it blue, or say “pretty please let me vote,” all might pass muster. And so might a voter ID requirement.

The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution’s protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting. As Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier has written, this “leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials.”

All of which leads to the question about a constitutional amendment, making the affirmative right of an adult American citizen to cast a ballot explicit within our constitutional system.

For some in Congress, this isn’t just an academic exercise. TPM had  this report  back in May.

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.

“ Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”

msnbc

I believe that they are not reading the amendments correctly.

Some feel that the 26th amendment means that if you're over 18 you have the right to vote. What the amendment actually says is the Federal Government and the States cannot bar you from voting based on age (over 18).

Correct.  It is a negative charter against Government restrictions, not establishment of a right

If incarcerated prisoners are permitted to vote, then inmates in insane asylums should be permitted to vote as well.  According to a lot of members here a lot of people in the USA proved themselves to be insane for voting the way they did, so what the hell, open it up for everyone.  

You know, just because a person is insane doesn't mean they're stupid.  One of my late father's favourite stories to tell back in the days before mobile phones:

A man was in a hurry driving through the countryside to an important meeting, and just as he was passing by a big old stone building behind a high stone fence he got a flat tire, and stopped in front of a high iron gate.  He got the spare and the tools out of the trunk, jacked up the car, and removed all 4 nuts holding the wheel, placing them in the inverted hub cap on the ground.  He pulled the flat tire off and inadvertently kicked the hub cap and all four nuts rolled into the sewer.  "Oh my God! "What am I going to do?  I'm not going to make it to that important meeting." 

Then he heard a voice from behind the gate. "Mister, just take one nut off of each of the other three wheels and use them to secure the spare.  That will get you to where you need to go."

"Hey, that's a great idea. What is that place behind the wall."

"It's an insane asylum" said he voice behind the gate.

"An INSANE ASYLUM?  Oh, you must be staff there."

"No, I'm a patient."

"You're a PATIENT?"

"Yeah, I may be insane, but I'm not STUPID!"

As long as they are considered to be cognizant and can voice an opinion, they can vote.

This also applies to the elderly in nursing homes.