11 ms·
I haven't ever understood how being a felon removes a right ? Rights aren't something the govt gives so how can the govt remove them ?
by geggam 7y ago
I haven't ever understood how being a felon removes a right ?
Rights aren't something the govt gives so how can the govt remove them ?
- the_narrator 7y agoWhy is that surprising? If you kill somebody, you will obviously have some of your rights taken away.
- geggam 7y agoDepends on why you kill them. Q: If the govt tells you to kill someone is it wrong ? A : it depends :)
- ceejayoz 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez
- rpmcmurdo 7y agoBecause the government can. Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany how "rights" worked for them. Prior to Hitler coming to power, Germany was the most advanced and liberalized society of its time.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoMaybe the actual rights have clauses on them that go, "provided that you haven't stolen, defrauded, or assaulted anyone," and you're just reading the abridged version.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt's actually that the Constitution doesn't really define who can vote. It forbids certain sorts of discrimination - gender, race, age (past a point), but leaves the rest up to the states. California could, as far as I can tell, forbid voting by blondes, or by people who need glasses, or ban anyone who's had ice cream in the last month from the polls.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> California could, as far as I can tell, forbid voting by blondes, or by people who need glasses. Not unless the Supreme Court decided to throw out, like, the whole of 14th Amendment Due Process and clause jurisprudence, where it comes to standards for impairing or discriminating in fundamental rights and voting’s status as such a right. (I wouldn't put it past this court, but even for them it would be an unusual break with settled Constitutional case law.) And even then, Constitutionally, only blonde females and males under 21 if it doesn't want to lose seats in the House, since another part of the 14th Amendment (though this has historically not been enforced) makes denying males 21+ the vote for any reason other than conviction of crime mean reduction, in equal proportion, to House representation.
- ceejayoz 7y ago> And even then, Constitutionally, only blonde females and males under 21 if it doesn't want to lose seats in the House, since another part of the 14th Amendment (though this has historically not been enforced) makes denying males 21+ the vote for any reason other than conviction of crime mean reduction, in equal proportion, to House representation. That just further highlights the bafflingly cobbled-together nature of the whole ruleset.
- dragonwriter 7y agoWomen and 18-21 year olds got the right to vote after the 14th Amendment, and the way the Constitution gets amended (new articles that do not specifically update the provisions they modify) is prone to produce (at least, in the bare text; with litigation, some of this gets smoothed over in case law, though there's not a lot of litigation on the provision at issue to do that) incomplete updates and inconsistency.
- DrScump 7y agoWomen and 18-21 year olds got the right to vote after the 14th Amendment To clarify: After, but not as a result of. (See Amendments 19 and 26)
- ng12 7y agoThe government can absolutely remove them. That's what prison is.
- leftyted 7y ago> Rights aren't something the govt gives so how can the govt remove them ? Rights are something that a government gives. You only have rights insofar as they are respected by the government that controls the area in which you live. "Human rights" or "unalienable rights" are nice ideas but insubstantial. That aside, I think felons should be able to vote.
- colejohnson66 7y ago> "Human rights" or "unalienable rights" are nice ideas but insubstantial. The US was founded on the idea of unalienable rights
- leftyted 7y agoOur rights have been alienated when the government felt like it. Which is true for all supposedly unalienable rights. You have rights as long as you are are a recognized member of the political system that controls the territory where you live. But there are plenty of people "on the margins" who simply don't have rights and governments reserve the right to expel people from the political system at will.
- jcranmer 7y agoYou may be deprived, under the 5th Amendment, of life, liberty, and property via due process of law. Since felons have been convicted of crimes under due process, their right to vote (liberty) can be deprived.
- geggam 7y agoGiven the consent of the governed being a requirement for a govt to be legitimate. At what threshold of congress approval do we say the govt is not being given consent ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
- tptacek 7y agoPolled "congress approval" has no applicability, since we have direct popular election of both senators and House representatives (and, here, of state senators and representatives in Florida). The Constitution includes no direct provisions allowing disapproving citizens in California to disempower representatives in Maine (or, presumably, though I've never read the Florida Constitution, of residents of Tallahassee to disempower representatives of Miami).
- geggam 7y agoPretty sure the evidence is quite clear. The first black president was elected promising change. Now we have Trump who had no political background implying people want change Choosing the least painful way to get screwed isn't consent.
- tptacek 7y agoSpecial pleading aside, elections are how we gauge consent. What would be coercive would be if we deputized firms like Gallup and made their polls binding. But putting principles to the side: your argument doesn't even hold up empirically. Americans have a very low opinion of Congress, but generally approve of their own representatives.
- 7y ago
- howard941 7y agoIt turns out that voting is not a fundamental right else limitations on voting would be subject to strict scrutiny. They're not, and it's not, and that's wrong but that's the funky state of the law. See for ex the discussions at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/10/ https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/10/ and http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fundrights.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fundrig... but with the caveats that the first article is old enough to go to grammar school and the second is old enough to vote (?), and the passage of time has done little to raise the level of scrutiny courts apply to limitations on voting.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoLegally, rights can be taken away by the government. For example, prison inmates do not have the right to bear arms. Here is a decent wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_Law
- slowhand09 7y agoAnd I have yet to hear of felons rights being restored that includes their rights to bear arms.
- Gibbon1 7y agoI saw a retrospective on California's death row inmates whose sentences were commuted when the death penalty was overturned. California's maximum penalty was 25 to life. Most of the two dozen death row inmates were eventually paroled. One of them moved to Montana or some such and refused to be interviewed. But the local Sheriff agreed to say a few things. One of which was the guy owned a deer rifle but agreed with the Sheriff that it was best not to bring it into town.
- kls 7y agoI live in FL my uncle killed two men for robbing him and sodomizing his wife in front of him, in his house. He later hunted them down and killed them fairly brutally. He was convicted of 2nd degree murder and served 12 years. His gun right where restored two years ago. He has been out for a while now and has proven that he is not a danger to society, just people who rape his wife. They do get restored if you can prove that you represent no increased danger to society by said right being restored.
- AcerbicZero 7y agoI think the confusion is between rights, and societal privilege, or "legal rights". The waters can be a bit muddied here, and there are various political philosophies here, but most Western nations follow some form of classic natural rights. So in the context of voting, you have no natural right to vote, because in a state of nature the only authority is your own, and you don't need to vote with yourself. A society comes along, and sets up a governing body, say, democratically, and says "everyone gets to vote!". However, this isn't a right, but instead a privilege, (or perhaps a legal right) which derives its authority from society, which means society can do what it pleases with it. Natural rights cannot be removed by society, only infringed upon. I.e. you never "lose" your right to life, just because society decides to have you executed. They've just infringed upon it in the worst possible way.
- geggam 7y agoOthers think govt is merely an extension of natural law... Similarly, Sabine notes the position of John Locke in Essay concerning Human Understanding: [Civic power] can have no right except as this is derived from the individual right of each man to protect himself and his property. The legislative and executive power used by government to protect property is nothing except the natural power of each man resigned into the hands of the community…and it is justified merely because it is a better way of protecting natural right than the self-help to which each man is naturally entitled.
- AcerbicZero 7y agoTrue, although the government does not supersede the natural right, it just extends the protection of that right beyond what the individual can do alone. Still, a good call out, thanks!