Florida lawmakers might not give voting rights back to felons, even though 64% of voters want them to

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

That is vague and does not specify voting rights removed for life. 

Not really.   It gives the states the right to choose disenfranchisement based on crime.   Its quite clear.   It doesn't say they have to or limit the time frame.  I'd say there are much more vague parts of the constitution than 14 section 2.  

Edited December 19, 2018 by Highmark

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not really.   It gives the states the right to choose disenfranchisement based on crime.   Its quite clear.   It doesn't say they have to or limit the time frame.  I'd say there are much more vague parts of the constitution than 14 section 2.  

The vagueness directly conflicts with the 1st. To not see that is typical as those aren’t the type of people you want voting. To remove right to vote is removing the 1st without clear guidance as to specifics in the 14th. 

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

The vagueness directly conflicts with the 1st. To not see that is typical as those aren’t the type of people you want voting. To remove right to vote is removing the 1st without clear guidance as to specifics in the 14th. 

Conflicts with the 1st?   Which part....petition the govt for redress of grievances?   Not voting does not stop that.  

Completely disagree with that assertion.   

Edited December 19, 2018 by Highmark

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Conflicts with the 1st?   Which part....petition the govt for redress of grievances?   Not voting does not stop that.  

Completely disagree with that assertion.   

Freedom of speech. Not being able to express yourself through voting 100% limits your 1st. Limits the validity of all other amendments as you do not have the ability to enforce their will through your vote. 

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Freedom of speech. Not being able to express yourself through voting 100% limits your 1st. Limits the validity of all other amendments as you do not have the ability to enforce their will through your vote. 

Is spending money free speech?   Should we then not limit how much we can spend on a candidates campaign?   Right or wrong lets be clear free speech is limited all the time.  

Edited December 19, 2018 by Highmark

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Highmark said:

Is spending money free speech?   Should we then not limit how much we can spend on a candidates campaign?   Right or wrong lets be clear free speech is limited all the time.  

That’s a good point. But, I would argue your ability to spend more limits free speech of another as you will have more agency. Solution, level the playing field to no money in politics. Spending on causes is speech, until that cause limits the rights of another. That’s the defining line. Does the exercising of your right infringe on another’s right?

[Highmark]

13 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

That’s a good point. But, I would argue your ability to spend more limits free speech of another as you will have more agency. Solution, level the playing field to no money in politics. Spending on causes is speech, until that cause limits the rights of another. That’s the defining line. Does the exercising of your right infringe on another’s right?

Fine line and where is it drawn from the poorest of us to the wealthiest?   Mere time available could be considered "free speech" for campaigning.   Someone unemployed or paid by a non profit to campaign has much more ability to influence than someone working 60 hrs a week.  It would be debatable that news corporations limit others free speech.  The whole ability to limit others speech by ones actions would be endless.   Someone owning more property to put up campaign signs....is that limiting those that don't have property to do the same?       

I see your point on the 1st but the SC has already ruled so unless another case comes up its the law of the land.   There are rulings I vehemently disagree with but until they are overturned they set what can and cannot be law.  

Decision[edit]

The Court pointed to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which exempted felony disenfranchisement laws from the heightened scrutiny given to other restrictions on the right to vote. The Court said that Section 2, which reduces a state’s representation in Congress if the state has denied the right to vote for any reason “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,” distinguishes felony disenfranchisement from other forms of voting restrictions, which must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests in order to be constitutional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Highmark

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

And that is why an Amendment is needed to address federal election. Set the standards to which we must abide in order to ensure the least amount of disenfranchisement. I understand your point on where is the line, but I think it is nominal in comparison to money. Money limits Rights in a tangible way.