And the reason they shouldn’t have the right to vote is…?
No.
Since I can never tell whether you folks are talking about a wise social policy or a normative legal framework, I have no idea.
The reason that they shouldn’t have the right to vote might be that the voters of Virginia already imposed a loss of voting privileges for those people who are convicted of a felony.
But they also reposed in the governor the power of executive clemency, giving him in his sole discretion the ability to restore voting rights to a previously convicted felon.
Here, McAufflife is using that power perfectly legally. I have no complaints.
I’d think the people that were apoplectic about the cynical use of their governmental power to help one side of an election would be going nuts here, except I know that their REAL concern is the help given to the right side, and they are perfectly calm when the left side gets a boost from cynical power use. So I’m fine with the move, and not even a little surprised. That’s how things work. If the people don’t like it, they can vote in a slate of legislators that will limit a future governor’s power to apply mass amnesty.
That was apparent in the “why not let felons vote?” thread. There was a bit of vague nonsense about “offending the body politic” and some fairly disturbing support for punishment for the sake of punishment, and I was left with the overall impression that you thought felons voting was bad, but couldn’t articulate why.
Really? Because, you know, of all the posters here, it’s you I depend upon most of all to fairly summarize my points.
Well, I’m sure I can rustle up some links if anyone is curious about your occasional inability to be articulate and my consistent ability to be articulate about your occasional inability to be articulate.
I should have said felons. under Virginia law, there are a shitload of things they cannot do. They cannot buy guns, they cannot sit on juries, they cannot work in certain occupations that require licenses, and they cannot vote.
My bad, this article says that analysts predict it will probably increase the voter rolls by 77,000 some of whom won’t be voting for Hillary. So no its not several hundred thousand.
Canadian. A lot like Minnesotans, but not as bombastic and wildly emotional.
Because Virginia constitution strips them of this right. The right can only be restored by the governor (or other appropriate authority). The last Democratic governor tried to do this sort of en masse dispensation of waivers and his Democratic attorney general told him that each case had to be reviewed on its own merits. McAulliffe says he has the blessing of the current Democratic attorney general.
Here is the provision on the exercise of executive clemency. I think this might be relevant:
"Section 12. Executive clemency
The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.
He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same."
With one difference being that partisan action meant to deny black votes is probably illegal while partisan action meant to increase the participation of blacks doesn’t seem to have a law against it.
No, you don’t actually know that. For a guy who’s all puffed up about separating opinions from facts, you play mighty fast and loose when you want to. Can’t really call that “liberal” hypocrisy since you are only liberal by comparison to Czar Nicholas II.
Unless the people that were upset with the cynical use of governmental power to decrease voting turnout were consistently in favor of policies that increased voter turnout. This particular policy action may be a bonus for democrats, but it is not a cynical bonus at odds with their previous actions.
If you have consistently taken the position that favors policies that decrease voter turnout, then you would be consistent in your support of the implementation of voter ID that decreases the turnout. Undemocratic, maybe, but at least consistent.
It’s not that difficult to figure out, not sure why you are so confused.
Jesusmercifulfuckyou’restupid…
I don’t have a problem with more citizens voting for political gain. I have a problem with making fewer vote for political gain. Because in this case, you’re increasing the ability of people to vote and in the GOP case, you’re decreasing the ability of people to vote.
You’re like Carson, a top-level brain in your region of expertise, but a fucking derpa-derp everywhere else.
Nope. No deal. Fact is, no, I can’t name 'em: I presumed, on form, they were the traditional four liberals. If it were a five to four vote, then, again, on past performance, they were probably the dissenters. I never paid that much attention to the specific case. You’re the one who brought it up.
It isn’t relevant. There was a dissent, and I can point to that dissent as a valid support for my position in this debate. Several U.S. Supreme Court Justices voted in a specific way, arguing that the law in question was unconstitutional.
Why aren’t you whining at them for being factually wrong?
You’re good at bullying and name-calling, but you’re dog-shit poor at sticking to the real point in the debate.
Can you name all the men who signed the Constitution? Right now, no looking it up? No? I’ll bet the same money, the same way, that you just did. You cannot name the Constitution’s signers. So you’re pretty obviously too ignorant to have an opinion on the document. Goose goose gander.
If you’d ever care to grow up and debate like an adult… Nah. Garland will be confirmed first.
Nope. As noted above, it isn’t relevant. I made an assumption, out of laziness, but I never, ever, set out to “analyze” the case. You’re still a bully and a fool, and most definitely a liar.
There was a dissent in the case. I point to that dissent as support for my claim that a law, even when upheld by the Supreme Court, can be viewed as unconstitutional.
Your own reasoning skills are flawed, as you play this kind of “moving the goalposts” game. Also, you’ve got feathers stuck between your teeth.
No one said a 6-3 decision was meaningless. You just got caught out making shit up. That’s how you maintain your credit as the most dishonest person on the SDMB.
No one here has denied that Supreme Court decisions are “the law of the land.” You just got caught again making up lies. You really wanna keep doing this?
That would be a fair comparison…if I had just proudly announced that I knew what I was talking about, just like the 56 signers of the Constitution did.
But of course such a statement would expose ignorance, since it was the Declaration of Independence that had 56 signers, not the Constitution. That knowledge alone means little, of course…it’s the invocation of the false fact as evidence that you know of whence you speak that turns it from meaningless to pathetic.
So whenever I claim that the 56 signers of the Constitution agreed with me, you are welcome to hoot and holler.
And you were the one that confidently highlighted the strength of your constitutional understanding with the claim that there were four dissenters.
Seriously, this is so pathetic it’s funny. On a website that claims an interest in fighting ignorance, you wave yours proudly, as a badge of honor, and hint darkly that the REAL problem is knowing it was 6-3. Not knowing, and assuming it was 5-4… yes, that’s the true sign of subject mastery!
Trinopus, you yourself denied that this Supreme Court decision was the law of the land. You called the result unconstitutional. You refused to admit that it is the current law of the land, dancing around the admission like Michael Flatley was your mentor.
You cannot call my recognition of this obvious point a lie.
What about your refusals to recognize obvious points in general? Lies? I only ask because calling you “disingenuous” has been done so often, it’s lost its charm.
Slippery as a catfish in a barrell of motor oil. An insincere catfish.