How to win arguments:
Some guy at the Center for Equal Opportunity testified
today against a federal bill that would require states to allow (ex)felons to vote.
He has two arguments. The first is states rights, where he admits that there are some Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment anti-discriminatory elements to comply with, but overall says that "Congress lacks the authority" to pass such a law.
The second argument is more interesting. Here's the essential part: (emp add)
Those who are not willing to follow the law cannot claim a right to make the law for everyone else. And when you vote, you are indeed making the law – either directly, in a ballot initiative or referendum, or indirectly, by choosing lawmakers.
Says who? Says Roger Clegg
, that's who.
It's pure assertion. Also, he considers felonies but not misdemeanors as a criteria for denying a person the ability to vote. That goes against his argument, as do further writings saying that some
ex-felons could be allowed to vote but only after review "on a case-by-case basis".
Anyway, back to Clegg's ex cathedra declaration :
Those who are not willing to follow the law cannot claim a right to make the law for everyone else.
Sure they can. And so can others who are not ex-felons, like me.
A couple for instances - Folks in jail are primarily there because they are poor. Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote for candidates who advocate for the poor? Pot is a drug that is being decriminalized in many states. Why shouldn't folks who served time for pot offenses have the right to vote for candidates who want to decriminalize pot? Folks serve long mandatory minimum sentences for minor offenses under three strikes and similar laws. Shouldn't they be alllowed to vote for candidates that want to return to jurisprudence over mandates?
Probably not as they vote over 90% democratic.
we need a list of republican felons who've been pardoned and had their voting rights restored.