I was wondering how long she could keep it up...

[Larry Gude]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._on_go_co/voting_machines_clinton_1&printer=1

...'it' being making reasonable public statements like seeing both sides of the abortion debate, supporting the war etc.

So, of course, the good Senator would obviously support felons regaining their Second Amendment rights, nes pas?

"I think it's also necessary so as to make sure most of our friends, Bill and mine, may participate as well..." said the New York senator.

I can't wait until Howard comments on this.

Is it Christmas?

 

[Penn]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_go_co/voting_machines_clinton_1&printer=1

...'it' being making reasonable public statements like seeing both sides of the abortion debate, supporting the war etc.

So, of course, the good Senator would obviously support felons regaining their Second Amendment rights, nes pas?



I can't wait until Howard comments on this.

Is it Christmas?

Larry, is doesn't matter if the votes she gets are from illegal aliens, if they surface from 6 feet under the ground, or if they've voted under a different name, or even if they're on death row. As long as Hillary gets them on her side.

She's getting the ball rolling, like now!

 

[ylexot]

In addition to creating a federal holiday for voting, the bill would:
_Require paper receipts for votes.
_Authorize $500 million to help states make the changes in voting systems and equipment.
_Allow ex-felons to vote. Currently an estimated 4.7 million Americans are barred from voting because of their criminal records.
_Require adoption of the changes in time for the 2006 election.
Boxer said the bill "is meant to ensure the election debacle of 2000, and the serious election irregularities of 2004, never ever happen again."

I fail to see how those changes would have any effect on any "irregularities". If they want to help make voting go smoother, they need to come up with some very clear and simple legislation instead of the typical verbose and unclear garbage they usually produce.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

 

[Bruzilla]

I think I've got to side with Hillary on this one. I think that felons should get their rights back after they have completed their punishment. Besides, figure the odds that felons are going to vote for gun banners... that's 4.7 million more pro-gun votes!

 

[SamSpade]

The parts that caught my eye were these --

[size=-1]"Require paper receipts for votes." [/size] [size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1]"Both parties have called for changes to ensure a more accurate vote count. Republican efforts have centered on reducing voter fraud, while Democrats have called for making access to the ballot box easier and simpler."

[/size]Now the first one - is that, a receipt for *having* voted? What's the purpose of that? But if it's to furnish proof that you can legitimately vote, that's not going to work. People are already crying 'foul'! because they're being asked to provide ID, or actually have to register instead of just showing up and wanting to cast a vote.

The second one - makes me wonder about how honest the writer is. The Republican effort at reducing fraud DOES produce a more accurate count; it eliminates fraudulent votes. The Democratic effort does nothing of the kind, and actually increases some of the inaccuracy by expanding the opportunity to vote without necessarily scrutinizing the validity.

 

[ylexot]

Besides, figure the odds that felons are going to vote for gun banners...

Probably all of them. Then they have guns and a we can't defend ourselves.

 

[ylexot]

Now the first one - is that, a receipt for *having* voted? What's the purpose of that? But if it's to furnish proof that you can legitimately vote, that's not going to work. People are already crying 'foul'! because they're being asked to provide ID, or actually have to register instead of just showing up and wanting to cast a vote.

It's a paper receipt of your vote and who you voted for. The Dems are scared of the paperless voting machines. I think it's a valid point that could be overcome with a paper backup system for recounts. But not knowing the voting system security measures, I don't know how valid of a point it is.

 

[Bruzilla]

Probably all of them. Then they have guns and a we can't defend ourselves.

Only if you keep living in Maryland.

 

[SamSpade]

It's a paper receipt of your vote and who you voted for.

Yikes. Is this something *you* keep (which means the only way to validate the vote would be for everyone to bring their receipt back to the polls) or something THEY keep (which means your vote is no longer secret?).

 

[ylexot]

Only if you keep living in Maryland.

Silly me, I thought this was a national issue.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

I think I've got to side with Hillary on this one. I think that felons should get their rights back after they have completed their punishment.

This is politics, I don't give without a get. Don't tell Hill, but I agree with you both. If a convict has served his time, then he's paid his debt, in full. He should be able to vote and keep and bear.

So, if Hillary will scratch my back, I'll scratch hers.

Then we'll listen to the wailing about how, all of a sudden, maybe sentences need to be longer.

 

[Bruzilla]

Silly me, I thought this was a national issue.

You know... I used to think the same way. Then I visited South Carolina and found that they do not observe the Brady Bill in that state, even though the Brady Bill is a federal law. Then I found out that Florida is the same way, and who knows how many other states refused to observe that law.


So you have states that will take a federal gun law, adopt it, and even add to it, i.e., Maryland; and then you have states that tell the feds to stuff it!

 

[vraiblonde]

It depends on what they've done. Writing bad checks? Okay. Petty theft? Sure. Gunning down a 7-11 clerk? NO WAY. Hillary must be planning on sweeping the felon vote, otherwise you know damn well she wouldn't be proposing this.

As to the voting thing, no matter what you do someone will still find a way to cheat. I do notice that they didn't include the #1 way to curtail voter fraud, and that's to make all voters provide ID at the polls.

 

[Bruzilla]

It depends on what they've done. Writing bad checks? Okay. Petty theft? Sure. Gunning down a 7-11 clerk? NO WAY. Hillary must be planning on sweeping the felon vote, otherwise you know damn well she wouldn't be proposing this.

Why should the category or level of the crime make a difference? Once a felon has done his/her time, their slate should be clean. I think the point you're making is that someone who commits theft or writes bad checks should be released from prision and vote, while someone who guns down a clerk should never get to vote again because they should have been executed for their crime (which, granted, would still not inhibit their voting for a Democrat under the "deceased but still voting" get out the vote effort). Until the sentencing guidelines are fixed, I don't think its fair to continue punishing someone after they've paid their debt.

 

[vraiblonde]

Once a felon has done his/her time, their slate should be clean.

I do not feel that way. I'm not willing to say of a child rapist, for example, "Okay, you've done your time and now you are officially a good and responsible person again, able to cast votes that affect the rest of us, and wield a firearm." And I do not believe that violent criminals ever "pay their debt" - they can't possibly unless they unrape someone or bring the dead back to life. Sitting in a prison watching MTV and b!tching about the food isn't my idea of "paying a debt".

 

[Bruzilla]

And I do not believe that violent criminals ever "pay their debt" - they can't possibly unless they unrape someone or bring the dead back to life.

I agree... so did most of our ancestors, who used to execute people for these crimes. The problem isn't some fellons voting, it's some fellons being released.

 

[vraiblonde]

The problem isn't some fellons voting, it's some fellons being released.

But the fact is that they WILL be released. And I don't think that we, as a society, should say, "Oh well, they're not going to get an appropriate punishment for what they did - might was well let them have guns and give them their voting rights back, too."

[hystericaloutburst]

Might as well not bother to lock them up in the first place. Might as well just say, "Oh well, I'm sure you learned your lesson," and put them back on the street. In fact, they probably committed those crimes because they were disadvantaged. Instead of taking away any of their rights, we should give them a new house on the beach and a new car. Maybe that would make them feel better about themselves so they'll stop doing all those bad things.

Actually, those "victims" probably deserved it anyway - if they hadn't been where they were, they wouldn't have become a crime victim. So it's their fault - maybe next time they'll think about that and not blame underprivileged young man for thier own poor decisions.

[/hystericaloutburst]

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think I've got to side with Hillary on this one. I think that felons should get their rights back after they have completed their punishment. Besides, figure the odds that felons are going to vote for gun banners... that's 4.7 million more pro-gun votes!

Disagree. I think loosing your right to vote and your right to keep and bear arms should be part of the penalty for being a felon, even a felon that has served all their time and are not on parole. A paroled felon is not a former felon; they are still under sentence, just not "inside".

I concur with ylexot and his quote from Jefferson. Here is another good one.

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow." --Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 62

I think the legislatures at all levels should spend more time taking old laws off the books than they do enacting new ones.

 

[Bruzilla]

I gotta disagree with you both. I don't feel that someone should lose any of their rights for eternity for an offense, no matter how bad, provided they served out the punishment that the community dealt them. If you screw up, you have a chance to redeem yourself. If you do, then good on you. If you don't you'll be back in jail and you can't vote anyway.

It's crap like this that puffs up the Brady Bill. Jane Secretary goes to the office Christmas Party, has one drink too many and on the way home gets tagged for a DUI. She goes to court feeling bad for what she did, pleads guilty, pays her fine and does her community service, and feels like she's vindicated herself... that is until she wants to buy a gun to protect herself and finds out that since she's convicted of a felony she can't have one. Plus the Brady Bill gets another unsuspecting DUI/DWI buyer while the real criminals are out buying guns from other criminals.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I gotta disagree with you both. I don't feel that someone should lose any of their rights for eternity for an offense, no matter how bad, provided they served out the punishment that the community dealt them. If you screw up, you have a chance to redeem yourself. If you do, then good on you. If you don't you'll be back in jail and you can't vote anyway.

It's crap like this that puffs up the Brady Bill. Jane Secretary goes to the office Christmas Party, has one drink too many and on the way home gets tagged for a DUI. She goes to court feeling bad for what she did, pleads guilty, pays her fine and does her community service, and feels like she's vindicated herself... that is until she wants to buy a gun to protect herself and finds out that since she's convicted of a felony she can't have one. Plus the Brady Bill gets another unsuspecting DUI/DWI buyer while the real criminals are out buying guns from other criminals.

I may be wrong, but I don't think DUI and DWI are felonies in all states.