I have to agree with you, we should not intrude on states rights. However, this act will not become/stay a law for two reasons

1) the bill will not get approved by the senate or the house. Not to mention, President Bush will veto it
2) if it is unconstitutional, as you have said, then the Supreme Court will deem it unconstitutional and it will cease to exist.

I'm sorry but I think it's pretty scary that the only way a political party can get a candidate elected is by changing the law. Especially when that law returns rights to murderers, rapists, child molestors, and drug dealers. If this country gives in to people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, that only care about their personal interests and welfare, we will be faced with mass corruption of government officials and a total meltdown of our democratic system. If Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, and other die hard liberals are ever given the opportunity, the United States would become a 3rd world country in no time while they complain that their butts hurt because of their big fat wallets in their back pockets!!!

I think Democrats need to take a very serious look at who they support. This small group of extreme liberals do not represent what the Democratic party believes but for some reason they are held in the highest regard. Maybe it's because of their last names? God only knows. All I know is the American people will never elect a Democratic President if all they have to offer is the Clinton's, Kerry's, and Kennedy's in their party. Here's an idea, how about nominating someone that is honest, wants to do what's best for the American people, and can care less what the U.N. thinks? That would be a good start!

Hillary's bill includes a measure to restore voting rights to "felons who have repaid their debt to society" from sea to shining sea - overriding the the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which explicity gives states the right to make that determination.

And why not make it legal for illegal immigrants to vote wholst she's at it? I mean, fair's fair.....

I'm sorry but I think it's pretty scary that the only way a political party can get a candidate elected is by changing the law.

I totally agree.

2) if it is unconstitutional, as you have said, then the Supreme Court will deem it unconstitutional and it will cease to exist.

Dont bet on it.  Many thought the Supremes would overturn McCain Feingold based upon Free Speech.  They did not.

It makes perfect sense for Miss Hillary to be all for the convict vote. Sen. Clinton (whatever happened to "Rodham" anyway?) will take care of those whose names came up after Prs. Clinton's pardon pen gave out.



It is my experience that too many Americans don't even acknowledge the State's voice in anything, so why should this be any different?

Actually, I think she is pushing this law through so that she and Bill can vote once they get out of Prison.

Actually, I think she is pushing this law through so that she and Bill can vote once they get out of Prison.

You could be right, but I guess it's not technically a conflict of interest until they are actually convicted. ;~D



((((Ok Myrrander, let's here how insensitive and mean we are to The Great and Most Honorable, Senator Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton Esq. (D. NY).)))) ;~D

I'm going to weigh in on the other side of this issue for a second. While states' rights are established by the 14th Amendment, Ol' Abe Lincoln effectively nullified them and each president since has continually eroded them further.

That being said, I think there's actually a larger issue with denying ex-felons, once they have completely served their time ("paid their debt to society") and a certain number of years have elapsed, the vote. I speak from personal experience: the mistakes that led to my incarceration at 18 are 17 years in the past. I had the fortune of a judge that gave me a sentence that allowed for my conviction to not hang over my head for life (by allowing it to be expunged after 5 years; a law many have worked to remove), but otherwise, I would be unable to vote because of stupid mistakes made almost two centuries ago.

I don't have a problem with a compromise law mandating a certain amount of time to elapse, but the right to vote is a sacred right of AMERICAN CITIZENS that should not be infringed upon. To deny this right amounts to, among other things, taxation without representation.

Just a few more thoughts for you to consider.

but otherwise, I would be unable to vote because of stupid mistakes made almost two centuries ago.

Ok, that sounds like a great start for a "comprimise" Two Centuries!! ;~D

Yes, I figure you meant "decades" but the tempation to pounce was just too much!! ;~D

----------

Seriously though, yes I would agree that most crimes should not come with a life long sentence. However, I would much rather leave voting laws with the states than see further encrouchment by the federal government. There are already too many calls for nationalization of our election laws (mostly because of ignorance to the purpose of holding our elections at the state and local level).

Work the issue at your state level. That is where it belongs.

lol...yes, two decades...lol

I do agree it's a states' rights issue, but I note that not too many want to give environmental laws, wage and hour laws, education, and the like back to the state. As wrong as this is, it's a continuation of a trend with a 140 + year history.

As for restoration of rights, I also feel a standard is not out of line, for instance, that you need to apply for reinstatement and have your case reviewed by a judge (preferably the sentencing judge, when possible). But I have serious reservations about allowing states to have a disenfranchised underclass, such as the current laws provide. We need to be very careful about infringing on ANYONE's rights, and realize that "convicted felon" does not necessarily mean "serial killer".

As wrong as this is, it's a continuation of a trend with a 140 + year history.

I agree the trend started 140 years ago, but that doesn't mean we have to put up with continuing it.

I note that not too many want to give environmental laws, wage and hour laws, education, and the like back to the state.

Yes, I agree some issues can't be handled at the state or local level. My call is that all issues should be handled a the most local jurisdiction possible. Such as education at the county level, with minimum standards and labor issues at the state level. Environmental issues are rarely confined to local jurisdictions, so most of those should be done at the state and federal level. (Just a couple of examples).

We need to be very careful about infringing on ANYONE's rights, and realize that "convicted felon" does not necessarily mean "serial killer".

This is the most important part of what you said. You are right, not every convice should be treated like a serial killer. I would definitely agree with re-instatement of voting rights to be considered on a case-by-case basis for major felonies and automatically re-instated for minor ones.

If you get right down to it, the only real beef I have with the concept of ex-con voting rights is, it should be left to the states. People in each state should lobby their leaders accordingly.