Jason Smith, if he didn't exist, someone would try to invent him. Currently in Austin, Texas.

Email | Twitter | Instagram

Posts tagged Reply
WHOAHHHHH I have been to this exact place.

Didn’t see that coming. Great waffle, right!?!

So why does Obamakeep opening up loopholes?

You mean:
So why does Obama the legislature keep opening up loopholes?

Congress debates and passes laws. The Executive signs them into law1 and enforces them2. Even if the Executive vetoed every law Congress could override every veto to enforce its will. Yes, I’m being patronizing. The distinction matters. The President does not legislate. Period.

Regarding how loopholes continue to exist and be passed into law please see original post for reasoning.

1. Except when it doesn’t. The law can still still pass per Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it…” This is a way of allowing a law to pass without necessarily supporting it. A political equivocation, yes, but it matters.

2. Except when it doesn’t. If the executive believes the law is unconstitutional they might refuse to enforce it. See DoMA. This is a more complicated area of the constitutional law and executive authority/privilege, and one that I am not about to get into in this response.

I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say. My initial post was in response the my disagreement with Voter ID laws. The article I referenced provided some statistical analysis on the predicted effects these laws will have on actual votes being cast.

The laws will restrict some voters from being able to exercise their right to vote for a variety of reasons. As I explained, I am liberal with my beliefs regarding enfranchisement. I think everyone should always be able to vote. Period. It is a fundamental right that prevents government tyranny.

Your original comment would insinuate that it was natural for me to oppose Voter ID because you already knew my stance on voter enfranchisement regarding felons. That could mean that my post was an exercise in repetition and unnecessary. That I no longer need to publically respond to political issues that I care about because my opinion is predictable. This may very well be the case. Or it could mean that you disagree with my stance on Voter ID laws or on enfranchisement writ large. That you believe there are situations where enfranchisement should be limited.

I would like to know when you think it is agreeable to disenfranchise voters. There are reasonable arguments that can be made.

Felony Disenfranchisement
There are only 13 states that disenfranchise felons for life, and the rest vary from requiring you to complete your probation to no restrictions at all.

You might believe all states should disenfranchise for life, or you could further clarify this stance and qualify your belief and say that while no one should be disenfranchised for life for committing a felony they certainly should’t vote while serving out their sentence. In Texas your right is restored when you finish probation. That once you have paid your debt to society you are a full fledged member again. I would counter and say that it would be even more of an imperative for me to vote while incarcerated, on parole, or serving probation because I am even more directly at the whim of the State. I should be allowed to vote for legislators and policies that I believe wouldn’t do a disservice to myself and my constituency. Lawbreakers are still a valid constituency with rights.

You could say that felons should not be allowed to vote because they have already broken the social contract and no longer deserve to be a full member of our society. I would counter and say that the are situations where the state could make an act a felony to actively disenfranchise the population. I’m repeating myself, but that remote, and it is very remote, possibility is enough for me to guarantee full voting rights to all citizens under any circumstance.

Voter ID
If you support Voter ID laws you can argue that they are a net benefit to society. That the laws are of public record and it is up to citizens to make sure they are going to be able to vote. That a photo ID isn’t too much to ask. Furthermore, that not being able to vote in one election should be lesson enough to learn to follow the rules of your state. That your civic duty compels you to bear the consequences of not having a political voice. That this would help create a more informed electorate and raise the quality of votes being cast.

This is a sound political philosophy. I chafe at it, but there is nothing unconsitutional, depending on access to free photo IDs and other considerations, about these laws. But, I am of the impression that they are being passed because of a political boogeyman that doesn’t exist. The laws to limit voter fraud that are in place are good enough, and that these laws will cause unnecessary disenfranchisement.

So, when is voter disenfranchisement to be encouraged and socially acceptable? This not just directed at Alex. I think it’s an important conversation to have.

TL;DR - I am no fun and do take this too seriously.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I think your statement is non-sequitur, and a restatement of the obvious because when it comes to voter enfranchisement I am extremely liberal1.

My views on allowing convicted felons to vote are more specifically related, but not limited, to our persuit of the war on drugs. These policies have generated a large number of felons for non-violent crimes. More accurately this has predominately effected minority groups. Studies have shown that drug use is relatively consistent across all demographics yet arrests and prosecutions have been disproportionately against African Americans and Latin Americans.

In reality, this has created communities where up to a third of the citizens have been arrested and convicted for felonies at some point in their life and are excluded entirely from having a political voice.

I am not arguing that they receive no punishment for activity the State considers illegal. I am saying that being a criminal shouldn’t automatically exclude you from being able to have a voice in who represents you. The larger issue being that whole communities have had laws applied to them unfairly and effectively limited their ability to have a political voice in a way that could not have been foreseen.

The ability to vote doesn’t assure that people will vote, but I would rather every citizen been entitled to one vote regardless of past decisions they have made as a safeguard against our legal system inadvertently becoming a tool for systemic voter disenfranchisement.

I know that I have not provided any sources for my views and if you would like me to provide chapter/verse references I will do that.

1. Liberal: Not literal or strict; loose.

kevinnuut replied to your photo: Fin.
Slow clap.

The closest we’ll get is Minneapolis and Lawrence.


Ladies and gentlemen, my sister.

Fine: Have A Conversation On My Blog. Don’t Mind Me.

I often wonder if dolphins talk of death.
Tell Kevin that dolphins just talk of what cool jumps they’re going to do today and what level of playful they’re going to be today.

Traitor! What happened to the solidarity that was Team Alien!?

Next page Something went wrong, try loading again? Loading more posts