So in the context of voting, you have no natural right to vote, because in a state of nature the only authority is your own, and you don't need to vote with yourself. A society comes along, and sets up a governing body, say, democratically, and says "everyone gets to vote!". However, this isn't a right, but instead a privilege, (or perhaps a legal right) which derives its authority from society, which means society can do what it pleases with it.
Natural rights cannot be removed by society, only infringed upon. I.e. you never "lose" your right to life, just because society decides to have you executed. They've just infringed upon it in the worst possible way.
Similarly, Sabine notes the position of John Locke in Essay concerning Human Understanding:
[Civic power] can have no right except as this is derived from the individual right of each man to protect himself and his property. The legislative and executive power used by government to protect property is nothing except the natural power of each man resigned into the hands of the community…and it is justified merely because it is a better way of protecting natural right than the self-help to which each man is naturally entitled.
The first black president was elected promising change.
Now we have Trump who had no political background implying people want change
Choosing the least painful way to get screwed isn't consent.
I think you'd find that pretty often, more than half the country disapproved of congress, even though, in the long run, each clone is equally likely as a voter regardless of geography, economic interest, etc. How could you design a voting system that's responsive to these variations?
This challenge gets more complex the more political alignments you account for.
Few people in an opinion poll of Congress are assessing their love of bicameral legislature. More commonly they're stating that they wish they could just have their way, regardless of opposing voices.
But putting principles to the side: your argument doesn't even hold up empirically. Americans have a very low opinion of Congress, but generally approve of their own representatives.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it's right to disenfranchise felons (it almost certainly isn't), nor does it mean any state is obligated to disenfranchise (most states don't). It does however mean that it's not straightforward to appeal to the Constitution in arguing to get rid of it.
Permanent dis-enfranchisement is a way of ensuring someone remains ostracized from society and is forever given reason to work against it.
Here is a decent wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_Law
There is no danger to "society" here—only to violent criminals who are themselves a danger to innocent civilians. The insane part is that he was punished with 12 years in prison for doing society a favor.
The thing is FL is a really weird state and people don't realize that we where one of the last continental US frontiers and really did not become much more than disconnected remote outposts until Flagler built the railroad down the east coat which was completed in 1912, Miami did not see a boom until the 1950's and much of the rest of the state you would not be able to tell from the 1800's until the 1970's. When you get outside of South Florida, Tampa and Orlando you end up in towns that are more like what people think when they think of some small town in nowhere Texas or Alaska, so there is a lot of if you don't cause a problem there wont be a problem type mentality (I mean belive it or not we still have parts of Florida where segregation is alive and well https://journaltimes.com/news/national/blacks-whites-live-wi...).
The judge was an old school Floridian and saw it for what it was, basically don't rape the guys wife and you won't get killed. I remember at the hearing he has a lawyer that lost his shit, because the judge asked him why he wanted a gun, and he told the judge well you honor, I figured out after the fact that if I had, had a gun at the time I would have saved myself 12 years of my life because it would have been self defense. I want a gun so the next time someone tries to rape my wife, I can deal with it then and there. Instead of stewing about until I retaliate in pure anger. He sited his fear of his wife being raped again as a need for self defense and said to the judge I think I have a valid concern for self defense there since I know it can happen and have experienced it first hand.
The judge asked him if he regretted or was remorseful for what had transpired, and again he was honest and told him no, that every day he looks at his kids he remembers how their mother was brutalized and he never wanted to be helpless in that situation again. That he realized his actions after the fact was that of a man torn up with rage and vengeance and that that rage and vengeance was still in him and that some days he wished they where still alive so that he could kill them again when he is having flashbacks and cannot get rid of them, but that he would have certainly acted in self defense back then had he been armed and in the future if the same event occurred he would defend himself and his family then and there and thus it would be a justifiable homicide. He said in his current circumstances with little children, he would not have taken the course of action that he did but that he would still feel the same way. That he was OK with having to pay his debt to society but it would be too high of a price to pay now having children.
The only person that was more surprised than me that his rights where restored, was probably his lawyer. I think the judge appreciated his honestly as he was being truthful, short of harming his family, he has no desire to kill.
My uncle who I spent alot of time with was a big-city detective. He had more than one story about someone who did something similar (understandable anger/rage about a horrific event). Justice in the city is different -- premeditation and vigilante action outside of an immediate event is as serious as the original act, best case it gets a favorable plea deal, etc.
One of them moved to Montana or some such and refused to be interviewed. But the local Sheriff agreed to say a few things. One of which was the guy owned a deer rifle but agreed with the Sheriff that it was best not to bring it into town.
Personally, I think that it should be possible but difficult for felons to earn back the right to vote. Not as difficult as earning back the right to bear arms, but more than just completing their sentences. Still, it’s up to each state to set its own rules for these things.
In my opinion, loss of the right to bear arms only makes sense for violent offenders.
Im not sure what the argument is for the loss of the right to vote is. Is it simply punitive? A deterrent?
I think that there’s a good argument that we have too many felonies which aren’t actually truly vile crimes. But I also don’t believe that Robert Hansen, John Gotti or the Unabomber should be voting.
Q: If the govt tells you to kill someone is it wrong ?
A : it depends :)
It forbids certain sorts of discrimination - gender, race, age (past a point), but leaves the rest up to the states.
California could, as far as I can tell, forbid voting by blondes, or by people who need glasses, or ban anyone who's had ice cream in the last month from the polls.
Not unless the Supreme Court decided to throw out, like, the whole of 14th Amendment Due Process and clause jurisprudence, where it comes to standards for impairing or discriminating in fundamental rights and voting’s status as such a right. (I wouldn't put it past this court, but even for them it would be an unusual break with settled Constitutional case law.)
And even then, Constitutionally, only blonde females and males under 21 if it doesn't want to lose seats in the House, since another part of the 14th Amendment (though this has historically not been enforced) makes denying males 21+ the vote for any reason other than conviction of crime mean reduction, in equal proportion, to House representation.
That just further highlights the bafflingly cobbled-together nature of the whole ruleset.
Women and 18-21 year olds got the right to vote after the 14th Amendment
(Sharp observers will note that race also wasn't explicitly a prohibited category until a later Amendment—the 15th—as the three civil war amendments, 13th-15th, were not ratified simultaneously despite being a related package, so blacks were considered in the disenfranchisement penalty clause before they had an individually-protected right to vote.)
Rights are something that a government gives. You only have rights insofar as they are respected by the government that controls the area in which you live. "Human rights" or "unalienable rights" are nice ideas but insubstantial.
That aside, I think felons should be able to vote.
The US was founded on the idea of unalienable rights
You have rights as long as you are are a recognized member of the political system that controls the territory where you live. But there are plenty of people "on the margins" who simply don't have rights and governments reserve the right to expel people from the political system at will.
Rights aren't something the govt gives so how can the govt remove them ?