In Virginia it also rises to the level of a felony if the speeding is so great as to qualify as reckless driving and the offender has a revoked or suspended license.
Do you think this level of disregard for the law qualifies as a felony if you were writing the code?
No, I still don’t think so. And when you add that the person is going to lose their right to vote because they drove too fast, it goes firmly in the NO WAY column.
So if someone is caught driving 60 mph in a 25 mph zone, and has a suspended license, how should he be punished?
We have this thing we call a “fine”, in which people are monetarily penalized. For more serious crimes, we have this thing we call a “jail”.
Sure. But the thing I’m getting at is that more serious crimes deserve more serious punishment.
In Virginia, reckless driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor, the most serious. So if aggravating factors are added to this, it can push things over into a felony charge.
Then we go to the next stage, which is called “prison”.
Please supply us with relevant excerpts from these works.
I’ve only heard of Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau. (As a Liberal, I’ve got commie heroes!)
Seriously, please share some specific examples & your interpretations.
Right. Prison here means you’ve been convicted of a felony charge, you know. With all that that entails.
Misdemeanor charges are punishable by fines or stays in county jail.
If these are your credentials, I am not impressed. If you were astute on the issues the black community faces, you wouldn’t be holding the views you have expressed thoroughout this thread. You have, for example, acknowledged racial disparity in felony convictions but still concede that that its a perfect measuring stick to abolish voting rights for released felons. White people have this idea that the issues the blacks face exists in a vacuum. Not so. Do you think gangsta rap materialized in the late 80’s because N.W.A had tenuous issues with the LAPD? The music became popular because it echoed the boiling anger and frustration many blacks had with the War on Drugs and law enforcement. Gangsta rap remains popular and will continue to do so until laws that target minorities are changed.
Blacks face a large range problems but to think that these issues are hinged on some inherent zest for violence is ridiculous. The violence that blacks face has a nexus point with drug crimes. Why the hell do you think in 1985, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) supported the Anti-Abuse Drug Act to increase sentences for crack-cocaine? Everyone wanted the scourge of drug-related violence to cease. In 1996, Maxine Waters admitted this was a mistake. The CBC thought the Act would target high to mid-end users (i.e. the people manufacturing the drug)s but instead law enforcement has specifically targets the low end users (the addicts).
Suppose I were to say:
The United States is the world’s most powerful and influential country. The policies and acts promulgated by the USA affects, in non-trivial fashion, every country in the world to some degree.
For this reason, the citizens of the whole world should have a vote in electing the American President.
Because EVERYONE should be represented by a vote.
If you were to say such a thing, we’d be wondering WTF this had to do with anything.
Fortunately, you’ve said no such thing, but only speculated about the possibility of your doing so.
Carry on.
Yeah, that’s a reasonable proposition. :rolleyes:
I don’t see Bricker’s statement as absurdist at all. I take it seriously. The executive authority in (one of) the world’s most powerful country does have the potential to affect a lot of people’s lives. But instead of granting everyone in the world a vote for that executive, the way that our modern nation-state system is supposed to handle it is by curtailing the power of any individual country to act unilaterally through institutions such as diplomacy, international treaties, and the United Nations.
The problem is, of course, what do you do when you end up with an executive who refuses to acknowledge these as legitimate limitations on his or her power, in addition to refusing to acknowledge the legislative and congressional oversight processes as legitimate limitations?
The relevance should be obvious.
Kalhoun asserts that everyone deserves a vote. But of course she doesn’t mean EVERYONE, as my example reveals. She means only certain people. Why do we exclude foreigners from casting ballots in our elections?
I contend that the same reasoning might apply to excluding felons. I offer this example so that she will distinguish the two cases.
Unfortunately, the mere use of sarcasm does not qualify as an argument remarkable for its cogency.
And while you would think that the addition of the “rolling eyes” smiley would have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, I must report that even that feared symbol of sharp debate has failed to carry the day here.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you see as the distinctions between my faux position and your real one.
Oh. I didn’t realize you were serious. :eek:
I was unaware anyone would consider letting non-citizens residing in other countries vote. It certainly wasn’t my argument.
Everyone deserves a vote; that’s true. That doesn’t mean the U.S. voting system should be the vehicle for that vote.
I have no problem with them drawing a logical line at U.S. citizenship being allowed to vote, but I’d also have no problem with legal alien residents voting as well. The illegals…well, I don’t see that happening.
Well, as I read your argument, it’s unclear why you draw that distinction (citizens vs. non-citizens) but reject other distinctions (felons vs. non-felons). Perhaps you could explain some of the reasons that citizens should be favored over non-citizens that would distinguish the cases.
Do we tax non-citizens living in other countries? If not, I’d say your comparison doesn’t quite float.
I think this hits on the real answer – the power to vote should be extended to everyone who is under the direct authority of the government or who is a present on the actual territory over which the government holds sovereign power.
Speaking for myself, I see no reason to distinguish between citizens and lawful permanent residents on this point.
