Food for thought

I must admit that I wasn't thinking of those criminals. I work in a welfare office so the former inmates that I run into aren't exactly of that sort. Good question for Gunner. Sue

Reply to
Sue
Loading thread data ...

Sure it does. Historically conservatives have been in favor of full prison terms, the end of plea bargaining, capital punishment, no touchy feely incarceration, mandatory sentencing etc.

The Left on the other hand, has been anti-personsal responsibility, pro minimal prison terms, against mandatory sentencing, maximum plea barraging, pro touchy feely incarceration, cable TV for the cons (including the Playboy channel) and " its not their fault they butchered

10 people, its societies fault"

One doesn't find the Republicans trolling the prison system looking for voters.

Use your head man. History is not one of your big suites is it?

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

Most criminals are criminals because they have no sense of personal ethics, personal responsibility, feel the world owes them something and if they dont get it, its their right to simply take or do it. Given these are corner stones of Democrat princibles...shrug..

I posted the article yesterday about the Dems fishing in the prison system for new voters, and the fact that surveys have shown that at least 70% of all incarcerated prisoners will vote Democrat. Its evident that those convicts prefer the Democratic Party for some reason, and one would be hard pressed to say it was a result of the Lefts hard stance on crime issues.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

by Phyllis Schlafly Jan. 28, 2004

Despite George W. Bush's high poll numbers, the Democrats think they have the key to winning the 2004 elections. Get the votes of convicted felons. Don't laugh; the Democrats are deadly serious. The nation's four million convicted felons could be enough to swing next November's election. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic if they could, so felons are a voting bloc the Democrats are itching to harvest.

In addition to providing the magic bullet to elect their candidates in November, this issue reprises all the sour-grapes whining by the Democrats about Bush winning Florida in 2000. The Democrats know that if felons had been allowed to vote in Florida, Al Gore would have won Florida and be president today.

The laws of forty-eight states place restrictions on the ability of convicted felons to vote. State laws vary widely in imposing restrictions.

State laws may distinguish between those who are now behind bars and those who have been released, or whether they are repeat offenders, or whether they are violent or nonviolent offenders, or whether they are parolees or probationers. Maine and Vermont allow convicts to vote even if they are still in prison.

Allowing felons to vote is highly unpopular with the American people, but the laws are amended from time to time. Since 1996, nine states have repealed a few of their voting barriers for convicted felons, while three states made their laws tougher.

These changes don't appear to have anything to do with partisanship or geography. The states easing their bans were Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, while the states that toughened their policies were Massachusetts (by constitutional amendment), Utah and Kansas.

The Democrats haven't a chance for wholesale repeal of these laws. So the Democrats are doing what liberals always do: they line up the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-wing lawyers and then seek out activist judges to issue rulings that elected legislators will not make.

The Democrats are using a study made by two sociologists, one at the University of Minnesota and the other at Northwestern University, who suggest that, since 1978, seven U.S. Senate races plus the 2000 presidential election would have turned out differently if felons had been allowed to vote. The professors estimate that Florida felons would have given Al Gore an additional 60,000 votes, more than enough to wipe out Bush's narrow margin of victory.

To try to give convicted felons the franchise, the Democrats are playing the race card, asserting that state laws have a "disparate impact" on blacks and Hispanics and therefore violate equal-protection guarantees. The laws of course are color-blind, and furthermore, it is no more discriminatory to deny felons their franchise than to deny them certain categories of employment, child custody, or gun ownership.

Lawsuits have been filed to overturn the laws that bar felons from voting in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington State.

Florida's law permits felons to regain their voting rights by executive clemency, and Florida's department of corrections has agreed to assist felons navigate the restoration process. Officials estimate that 130,000 Florida felons will soon be empowered to vote, but the Democrats are still going forward with their lawsuit.

The Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta by 2-1 reversed a District Court ruling in December and ordered a trial on the race allegations in Florida even though the plaintiffs presented no evidence of any racial animus. The Circuit Court decision was written by one of Clinton's most controversial nominees, Judge Rosemary Barkett.

The dissenting opinion in the Eleventh Circuit case pointed out that the

14th Amendment, Section 2, "explicitly allows states to disenfranchise convicted felons." Furthermore, the dissent explained, in the time period when Florida adopted the rule against voting by felons, no "disparate impact" on minorities existed, so there could not have been any bias in the adoption of the rule.

A U.S. District Court in Spokane dismissed a case brought by prison inmates, but the liberal Ninth Circuit sent Farrakhan v. State of Washington back for a trial. The felons want the law overturned because blacks are 37 percent of the felons denied the franchise.

New Jersey allows felons to vote after they complete their incarceration, parole or probation, but that doesn't please the Democrats. Ten ex-convicts (including a convicted killer) are suing to void the state law, because 81 percent of the prison population, 75 percent of parolees, and 52 percent of probationers are blacks or Hispanics.

These plaintiffs are backed by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School, the ACLU, the New Jersey State NAACP, and the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey.

The U.S. Constitution reserves the matter of voting regulations to state legislatures and specifically authorizes the disenfranchisement of felons. We should not permit activist judges to change the laws.

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

ASA NEWS Date: January 9, 2003

formatting link

Contact: Johanna Ebner or Lee Herring (202) 383-9005, ext. 332 snipped-for-privacy@asanet.org

If Felons Could Have Voted, National Election Outcomes Would Have Been Different

WASHINGTON, DC?If current and former felons had been allowed to vote, the outcome of as many as seven U.S. Senate races and one presidential election since 1978 might have been altered. Felon disenfranchisement laws, combined with high rates of criminal punishment in the United States, sometimes play a decisive role in elections. This is the finding of a study by sociologists Christopher Uggen, University Minnesota, and Jeff Manza, Northwestern University, reported in the most recent issue of the American Sociological Review.

The right to vote is a cornerstone of democratic governance, yet there are populations in this country disenfranchised from this civic process. The United States is unique among postindustrial democracies in that most states have established restrictions on voting rights for nonincarcerated felons, which make up three-quarters of the disenfranchised felon population. Currently 48 states disenfranchise felons (although ballot restrictions are specific to each state). The incarcerated are primarily the working-class poor and African Americans who traditionally vote Democratic.

In their article, ?Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States,? Uggen and Manza analyze whether felon disenfranchisement had meaningful political consequences in past elections. They calculated the number of felons and ex-felons affected, then estimated voter turnout and vote choice based on their known characteristics (i.e., gender, race, age, income, labor force status, marital status, and education). They then adjusted for over-reporting of voting to determine the number of votes lost/gained by both Republican and Democratic candidates.

The researchers estimate that the disenfranchised felon population is composed of approximately 35 percent ex-felons, 28 percent probationers,

9 percent parolees, and 27 percent prison inmates. The impact of felon disenfranchisement would have been greatly reduced had ex-felons, parolees, and probationers?all citizens not currently in prison?been permitted to vote in all states. Their survey data suggest that Democratic candidates would have received about seven out of every ten votes cast by this disenfranchised population in 14 of the last 15 Senate election years.

?By removing those with Democratic preferences from the pool of eligible voters, felon disenfranchisement has provided a small but clear advantage to Republican candidates in every presidential and senatorial election from 1972 to 2000,? wrote Uggen and Manza.

Since 1978, there have been more than 400 Senate elections, and the outcomes of seven of those might have been different if the vote had been given to felons and ex-felons. While the percentage change is small, the difference might have had a significant long-term effect, given the well-known advantage of incumbency.

In 1978 two of the 32 Senate elections might have had different outcomes if not for felon disenfranchisement, and this would have increased the Democrat majority from 58:41 to 60:39. Of the 32 senators elected, the incumbent party retained its seat through at least 1990 in 29 cases (91 percent) and through at least 2002 in 23 cases (72 percent).

?Assuming that Democrats who might have been elected in the absence of felon disenfranchisement had held their seats as long as the Republicans who narrowly defeated them,? said Uggen and Manza, ?we estimate that the Democratic Party would have gained parity in 1984 and held majority control of the U.S. Senate from 1986 to the present.?

According to Uggen and Manza, the outcome of the most contested presidential race in history, the 2000 Bush vs. Gore election, would almost certainly have been reversed had voting rights been extended to any category of disenfranchised felons. Had only ex-felons been enfranchised in Florida and participated at the estimated rate of Florida turnout (27.2 percent) and with the Democratic preference (68.9 percent), they would have yielded an additional 60,000 net votes for Gore. This would have been more than enough to overwhelm Bush?s narrow victory margin.

?If disenfranchised felons in Florida had been permitted to vote, Democrat Gore would certainly have carried the state, and the election,? said Uggen and Manza. ?We can thus conclude that the outcome of the 2000 presidential race hinged on the narrower question of ex-felon disenfranchisement rather than the broader question of voting restrictions on felons currently under supervision.?

The researchers examined only national presidential and senatorial outcomes and did not explore the potential consequences of felon disenfranchisement on U.S. House, state, local, and district-level elections (e.g., in urban legislative districts, where felons and ex-felons are concentrated geographically and where disenfranchisement therefore likely has an even greater impact).

The American Sociological Review publishes original works of interest to sociology in general, new theoretical developments, results of qualitative or quantitative research that advance our understanding of fundamental social processes, and important methodological innovations. To acquire a copy of ASR or for further information, contact the ASA?s Public Information Office at (202) 383-9005 x332 or snipped-for-privacy@asanet.org.

The American Sociological Association, founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions and use of sociology to society.

# #

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

formatting link
"This could be a shock to some, but I?m not really as unbiased and nonpartisan as it may appear. Certainly it?s true that in all these years of provocative commentaries and penetrating analyses my own political views have been well concealed.

Readers have come to expect evenhanded, impartial observations.

Recently, though, I must confess that it?s been a struggle to maintain that neutrality. Evidence that there?s a huge difference between the two major political parties continues to pile up.

Earlier this month, the Polling Company announced the results of a national survey. The research firm characterized the results as shocking. Depressing would have been an equally appropriate description.

More than half of the participants couldn?t name a single one of the 19 departments in the president?s cabinet. I would have thought that most folks knew of the Defense or Justice or Treasury or State Department. Silly me.

Three of the groups most likely not to be able to name a department were Hispanics, African Americans, and women. All of these, of course, are Democrat core constituencies.

Ill informed voters traditionally have voted for Democrats. In the last presidential election, people who never completed high school favored Albert Gore over George W. Bush by 20 percent. This wasn?t considered shocking by anyone that I know of.

Another poll, this one conducted by the Pew Research Center, explored feelings of patriotism by asking Americans if they agreed with the statement, "I am very patriotic." Among Republicans, 71 percent said they completely agreed. Only 48 percent of Democrats completely agreed.

Pew also surveyed views on religion. Three questions were combined into a single indicator of religious intensity. The statements were: Prayer is an important part of my daily life; we will all be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for our sins; and I never doubt the existence of God.

While 78 percent of the Republicans questioned agreed with all three statements, just 71 percent of Democrats did. The split between conservatives and liberals was even more pronounced. Of self-identified conservatives, 81 percent agreed with the statements on faith. Among self-identified liberals, it was barely over half, at 54 percent.

Extending the right to vote to convicted felons has been a Democratic agenda item for several years. Almost all of their presidential candidates back the idea.

Fewer than a dozen states have lifetime bans on released felons voting, but the prohibition does have an impact on elections. Research reported in the American Sociological Review a few months ago made a pertinent point.

In the last 25 years as many as seven U.S. Senate races, as well as the

2000 presidential election, could have been won by Democrats rather than Republicans if current and former felons had been able to vote.

The study came to this conclusion after projecting how these criminals would have cast their ballots. The researchers estimate that about seven out of every ten votes would have gone to Democrats.

Seven out of ten. Perhaps they should change the name to the Democrat-Felony Party. Or is that redundant?

Yes, the Democratic Party has undeniably become the natural home of dim-witted, unpatriotic, irreligious crooks. When will smart, patriotic, faith-filled, honest Democrats realize their party has abandoned them and make a change?"

November 13, 2003

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

The next time a Democrat/Liberal mentions wanting to restore a Felons rights, ask him/her if that also includes the right to own a firearm.

Tends to make them swallow hard and change the subject.....lol

BTW...there is no such thing as an ex-felon. Once you are convicted of a felony...unless you are later found innocent...you remain a felon for life.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

I thought if one were pardoned, that erased the felony. Could be wrong though. I think this guy Janklow (killed the motorbike rider in SD) is going to get pardoned.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Hmm, lemme check

"Hello, Danbury minimum security prison? Yes, I'd like to know.... yes, I'll hold.... ok, thank you."

Yep, they're 100% republicans in there.

:^)

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen
[deletia in places, lots of places]

which you said the US is not a true democracy but that, "technically,

Actually, I wrote, "As you [Mr. Coffman] note, technically, the US is a republic; even more technically, the US is an oligarchic republic..."

You said that, not me. I defined "republic" as a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch (the US head of state who is not a monarch), I also pointed out that the US government was not a "true" democracy (the majority does not rule). Please try to argue with what I've written, not your straw constructions.

Oops! The Dead Greek might point out that your premise is false and presumes your conclusion.

Nossir, would you care to refine your understanding?

define your forms of government by their unique structures.

So far, so good.

So, a logician you ain't. (g) A "pure" democracy may or may not be a republic, depending on whether it incorporates a head of state that is not a monarch. Offhand, I can't think of a single example of a "pure" democracy, can you?

A dictatorship may or may not be a republic, depending on whether power is held by a head of state who is not a monarch (Cuba), or a junta (Myanmar).

A representative democracy may or may not be a republic, depending on whether political power is held by a head of state who is not a monarch, or shared by several factions.

Now it gets fuzzy. Although a tribal oligarchy may have a titular head of state who is not a monarch, such a government would be more accurately defined as an oligarchic republic because actual political power is held by a group, not a head of state.

its unique structure, how do you reconcile, for example, the "unique

If they fall within the parameters of the definition, both forms of government in your example can call themselves a "republic"; e.g., Costa Rica is a representative democracy; Cuba is a dictatorship; each calls itself a "republic."

from Webster's, which is worded almost exactly as you have worded

"Almost exactly...?" Would that be like being a little bit pregnant?

The terminally pedantic may find it offputting, but simple definitions are sufficient for a simple iron pounder like myself when differentiating between various forms of government. For further clarification, the definition can be further refined; e.g., "oligarchic republic," "representative democracy," "constitutional monarchy", etc., as does linnean classification.

argument is start a run for the authoritative references...

Run, don't run, no me importa.

that has a head of state who is NOT a monarch," and that opened up >your definition to all sorts of...ah, "unique structures," eh?...

Try to follow along: As advertised, the defining criterion of a republic is a government in which the head of state is not a monarch. On meeting that criterion, a republic can take many forms, but it must FIRST meet that unique criterion. Entiendes?

Dead Greeks a chance to tell us what they meant when they coined

I prefer modern usage as etymology is dynamic: Consider the etymology of the word "awful."

Any perception of contradiction lies within your comprehension, not within the purposely narrow, KISS, confines of my argument. (bfg)

Reply to
Tom Stovall

If you are pardoned, the conviction still occured. The pardon doesnt wipe the crime, just the time.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Reply to
Gunner

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:32:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress" brought forth from the murky depths:

Both he and Perot got my votes when they were up to bat. Until we get the two corrupt parties out of our gov't, we're going to be in deep kimchee and debt. Run for Prez, Ed. I'd vote for you before I'd vote for another Rep/Dem, and I mean that sincerely. You OR the iron pounder. ;)

Reply to
Larry Jaques

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:50:32 GMT, Gunner brought forth from the murky depths:

This kind of "report" is precisely why I despise politics. It's full of buzzwords/newspeak and is total bullshit. ASA can kiss my grits. (Whew, I feel better now.)

Reply to
Larry Jaques

I'm registered in the American Reform Party and would vote that way this election, but they don't seem to have a candidate this time around, so I'll be voting Libertarian instead. (By the way, you might be amazed at seemingly how few people even realize that there are more than two parties.)

Ditto. Perhaps Ed can sign on as the Reform party candidate:

formatting link

Reply to
Artemia Salina

Aack! What have I done? What have I done?

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Larry. But, as I said, be careful about what you wish for.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Jeez, I forgot to make my parenthetical point there. It was that although Ross Perot might not have made a good president, he really did this country a service by running, because it helped a great deal to show people that they have more than just two options. In fact, its probably because of Perot that Nader and the Green Party got so many votes. Bless Ross's money... I mean HEART!

Aw c'mon Ed! Anyone who has the patience to reason with Gunner has MY vote! Maybe Jim Rozen could be your running mate!

Reply to
Artemia Salina

That overqualifies him for prez ... perhaps he's got what it takes to replace Mother Theresa. :-)

Wayne

Reply to
wmbjk
[Tom said]

[Ed said]
[Tom said]

Firstly, I'm not arguing at this stage, Tom. I'm just trying to find some consistency in what you're saying, so we know what you're talking about.

Maybe you can help. You say "a republican form of government is simply one that has a head of state who is NOT a monarch," which would seem to include a democracy. But now you're saying that *I* said that, not you. Which is it, then? Is a "true" democracy a republic, or is it not? Maybe it's not so simple after all?

[Ed said]

[Tom said]

It's beginning to look like it would take more than refinement to follow your convolutions, Tom.

[Tom said]

[Ed said]

[Tom said]

[Ed said]

[Tom said]

Wait a minute. So now you're saying a "pure" democracy may be a republic, as long as it doesn't have a head of state who's a monarch? A pure democracy with a head of state who's a MONARCH??

Now, that one ought to get a glass case in the Smithsonian's Hall of Dumfounding Ideas. "Here we have the pure democracies that are republics, and the ones that are not...because these "pure democracies" have...ah...monarchs...for heads of state...

[Ed said]
[Tom said]

Uh, which one of these two is the republic? Neither one is headed by a monarch, right?

[Ed said]
[Tom said]

Wait a minute. If they're both republics, what happened to your idea that a republic has a "unique structure"? Did it get swept under the rug?

[Ed said]
[ThOmas said]

Can we just stick with "republic" for now? I'm assuming the ones that contain an adjective and the word "republic" are still republics by your definion, right?

[Ed said]

[Tomás said]

Hmm. Many "forms"? What happened to "unique structure"?

[Tom said]

Ok, time to put an end to this nonsense.

Have you ever gone flounder fishing, Tom, and hooked an eel? You know you've hooked something funny by the way it jerks around, and then it comes over the side, and the last six feet of your line is tied in knots. That's the way this feels. I think you've tied ten Figure-Eights, two Sheepshanks, and then you put a Turk's Head on the end of it.

The best thing to do is to cut off the knotted section of line, tie on new hooks, and start again. So let's do the quick and smart thing, cut the line, and examine this argument. ("Oligarchy" got lost along the way of the argument over "republic"; I'll take that up in a minute.)

What happened here is that you made a pair of contradictory statements, one that "republic" is defined by what it's *not* (a state headed by a monarch), and another claiming that a republic has a "unique structure." Firstly, you should smell a problem when something is defined by what it's *not* rather than by what it *is*. That usually means that there's no simple way to explain what it *is*. And that's precisely the case with "republic."

Republics have no "unique structure," as you've indicated with your own words, despite your knot-tying efforts. Various forms of democracy can be republics, as you've said, and you've also included dictatorships, some tribal oligarchies, and so on. They all have *different* structures, as anyone with enough sense to come in out of the rain will immediately recognize. You sort of "refined" yourself into a corner, and then applied some interesting slight-of-hand in order to attempt escape. But you're deeply hooked, by your own words, and no amount of pedantry, subtlety, or refinement will throw the hook.

Now, you seem to be taking this in a jovial way; it's fun sometimes to banter with someone who's quick and clever, and I wouldn't deny anyone a chance to talk his way out of a blatant contradiction. But we have to conclude somewhere, so I'm going to conclude here. Carry on if you wish; I'm out after this one:

It takes a discussion like this to alert some people to the fact that trying to define the term "republic" as a structure of government is a losing proposition. You can say what it's *not*, and you can identify particular republican forms that are partly defined by their particular structures (the US, for example, is called the "Extended Republic" by some historians; it has a unique structure. But it's not the only republican structure.) What all republics have in common is an assertion -- whether it's truthfully realized or not -- that it's a government either of the people (Britannica or Encarta, I forget which) or a government for the people (classic, Aristotelian definition), or both. We're supposedly both. But our government's structure is very different from those of other republics you suggested in your extended...ah...machinations.

Now, about oligarchy. There are people who use the terms oligarchy and republic together, but those are sophomoric uses of the words. You can hang your hat on dictionary definitions and get away with it, but that's a little political or a little ignorant, in the view of many people in addition to myself. The word has a richer meaning than just "government by the few"; that's something one would come up with if his editor said he had two lines in the dictionary to define the word and you know you can't define what it is in anything less than an essay. It makes it hard to distinguish from aristocracy, for example, and most legitimate sources *contrast* oligarchy and aristocracy, and in doing so, contrast oligarchy with republic. I gave you one encyclopedia's explanation of Aristotle's classic definition. Here's another, from the Columbia Encyclopedia:

"When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people."

So it becomes a question of whether your intention is to further understanding, or to proselytize by hiding behind a crabbed and chinchy definition while implying one with a pejorative connotation -- like calling the US an "oligarchic republic," hanging your hat on the four-word definition of oligarchy you find in a dictionary, but knowing full well that the deeper, historical, and pejorative meaning is rule by the few for selfish interests. And I do believe you know that. An ad-agency copy chief would approve.

Hasta luego, Tomás. Yo tengo trabajo.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Dali Lllama, for sure! :^)

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.