Texas and Democracy

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Rockydonovang
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-crystal-mason-sentenced-five-years-prison-voter-fraud/

-> Texas doesn't give back the right to vote to people who serve jail-time
-> Woman isn't aware of this
-> Woman votes
-> Is sentenced to five years in prison
-> Denied appeal

Opinion 1: Anyone who supports the enforcement of this legislation should be impeached

Opinion 2: This is cruel and unusual punishment setting aside that this law is a form of oppression


Opinion 3: Voting laws need to be identical nationwide. States have no right to enact special restrictions on people's right to participate in our democracy. Such legislation is the primary injustice that needs to be eradicated in our country.

Playmaker
First off, we're not a democracy.

Secondly, it's quite common that convicted felons can't vote. And Texas restores voting rights after the completion of the sentence, parole, and/or probation. After that time is served, it's automatically restored.

Flyattractor
Looks like Somebody didn't do their homework.

SquallX

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-crystal-mason-sentenced-five-years-prison-voter-fraud/

-> Texas doesn't give back the right to vote to people who serve jail-time
-> Woman isn't aware of this
-> Woman votes
-> Is sentenced to five years in prison
-> Denied appeal

Opinion 1: Anyone who supports the enforcement of this legislation should be impeached

Opinion 2: This is cruel and unusual punishment setting aside that this law is a form of oppression


Opinion 3: Voting laws need to be identical nationwide. States have no right to enact special restrictions on people's right to participate in our democracy. Such legislation is the primary injustice that needs to be eradicated in our country.

I agree, identical laws. Every state needs to require an ID to register to vote.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
I agree, identical laws. Every state needs to require an ID to register to vote.
thumb up

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
I agree, identical laws. Every state needs to require an ID to register to vote.
Only if the id is easy accessed by everyone, otherwise, nah.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Playmaker
First off, we're not a democracy.

So?
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that the rights of the minority are protected. Rights like the ability to vote.


Ad populum isn't a defense.

Flyattractor
It also makes it that the Rights of the Minorities Do not Exceed the Rights of the Majority.

Which is something the Democrats would like to change for the worse.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Only if the id is easy accessed by everyone, otherwise, nah.

They already are. Stop acting like getting an ID is some massive hassle.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-crystal-mason-sentenced-five-years-prison-voter-fraud/

-> Texas doesn't give back the right to vote to people who serve jail-time
-> Woman isn't aware of this
-> Woman votes
-> Is sentenced to five years in prison
-> Denied appeal

Opinion 1: Anyone who supports the enforcement of this legislation should be impeached

Opinion 2: This is cruel and unusual punishment setting aside that this law is a form of oppression


Opinion 3: Voting laws need to be identical nationwide. States have no right to enact special restrictions on people's right to participate in our democracy. Such legislation is the primary injustice that needs to be eradicated in our country.

Opinion 2 is factually incorrect. That's not what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. For examples of what constitutes (pun intended) Cruel and Unusual punishment, as intended by the 8th Amendment, look at at few cases:

Hudson v McMillian (1992):
Compliant and docile man beaten, while in handcuffs, while in prison (beatings are a form of torture and explicitly prohibited under the 8th Amendment). This case would not have ruled this way had the inmate been fighting the prison staff while in cuffs.


Also, in the United States, we do not have to prove means rea for many crimes. Any crime that falls under 'Strict Liability' means that they will get the criminal penalties for violating that law. Almost all felonies fall under this Strict Liability. All you have to prove is that the person was of sound mind. Only when we get into areas of murder do we have to start grading what type of murder it was (proving pure accidents, for example, would be required to get out of a murder charge and that's why people who accidentally kill someone - and gross-negligence is not part of the reason why the death occurred - is why those people are not even indicted).

So, in this case, the USA is more concerned with "actus reus" than it is "mens rea."

Here is the position that you hold:

actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Which roughly means "the act does not make one guilty without a guilty mind."


In Canada, in general, you must prove both actus reus and mens rea. Which is what I think you believe:

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Actus_Reus_and_Mens_Rea




Also, here is the reason why I do not believe even a little bit that she did not know: there are dozens and dozens of times she was notified that she cannot vote. Forms she had to sign, statements made by people like judges and officers, briefings she would have been given by lawyers, an 'exit' briefing she would have been given exiting prison and the like. Ask any free-felon how many times they were notified that they cannot vote (or what the specific voting laws are for felons) and they will be able to tell you. It's not a secret. This is why the judge threw the book at her. She already committed fraud and she commits it again as soon as she gets out. She should have been in big-doo-doo for committing fraud very quickly after leaving prison for committing fraud.



IMO, there is no defense case, here. But I don't think she should go back to prison. I think she should be fined. Tax fraud? Fines. Voting fraud? Fines. No prison time for fraud or any crimes where no one is physically harmed.

SquallX

Playmaker
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So?
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that the rights of the minority are protected. Rights like the ability to vote.

Umm, no. There was vast differences between a republic and a democracy. The founders never believed in democracy. The founders believed in republicanism. The founders despised the idea of democracy. The idea that the people know best in every situation never crossed the founders' minds.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy." -John Adams, 1814

The entire purpose of a republic isn't to protect the rights of the minority. That happens in a republic, yes. But the purpose of a republic is to have a system of checks and balances that prevent the people from simply usurping all power. If you believe that the people are always right then you wouldn't need a constitution, you wouldn't need a Senate or the House or the Presidency or a judiciary.

The entire purpose of a republic is to create a division of power. There's a division of power among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government as well as a division of power among the people. This is why we have things like the electoral college. It was designed to stop the people from putting bad people into high office.

Chief Justice John Marshall said, "between a balanced Republican and democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

A balanced Republic is designed to check out the excesses. James Madison wrote this in Federalist 10 saying, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

So, no. There's a few major differences between a democracy and a republic.

Tzeentch
You're not fooling anyone, Star.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
They already are. Stop acting like getting an ID is some massive hassle.
It helps to be informed of what you speak of surt. Give it a try:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Kettle and Pot fam:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

If you're going to act indignant on the basis of knowledge. Make sure you know what you're talking about.

It's not relevant. If she doesn't have the right to vote, why should she follow laws she had no say in.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Playmaker

The entire purpose of a republic isn't to protect the rights of the minority. That happens in a republic, yes. But the purpose of a republic is to have a system of checks and balances that prevent the people from simply usurping all power.
Right, so that everyone is afforded basic rights. If the people upsurp power, there's no mechanism to protect people who disagree with or are disagreed with by the people.

And again, none of these distinctions between a direct democracy and a republic are relevant to the thread.



Lemme check this...

https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/#Washington


Fair enough then. Guess my outrage was largely directed at the wrong state (5 years is still a ridiculous sentence given that rape offenders have been handed shorter sentences), so I shall redirect the outrage of opinion one towards these states:


#Getmadbros

Rockydonovang
Wait really? I remember being taught in middle school that "cruel and usual" could be applied to the length of a term or how a court case proceeds. If not, it certainly should be.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It helps to be informed of what you speak of surt. Give it a try:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Kettle and Pot fam:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

If you're going to act indignant on the basis of knowledge. Make sure you know what you're talking about.

It's not relevant. If she doesn't have the right to vote, why should she follow laws she had no say in.

Kiddo, nothing there suggests it is a major hassle to get an ID.

Also some of the shit on there seems dumb as hell.

"States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards."

Lol. Now...list what one needs to get a concealed weapon permit. Go on. Does it involve having an ID?

Do you need an ID to get a student ID card? Think carefully. Do you need to be a legal citizen to obtain a student ID card? Given I've heard about illegals going to college...I'm guessing no. Unless they lied to get the card.

Surtur
Yep, confirmed:

https://professionals.collegeboard.org/guidance/financial-aid/undocumented-students

Some colleges do require you be a citizen to attend. Not all do and it is not law. Do better.

Rockydonovang
Surt and reading:



And here's the best part:



vs

Surtur
I did read. The cost is worth it considering what else an ID allows you to do.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It helps to be informed of what you speak of surt. Give it a try:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Kettle and Pot fam:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

If you're going to act indignant on the basis of knowledge. Make sure you know what you're talking about.

It's not relevant. If she doesn't have the right to vote, why should she follow laws she had no say in.

That 11 million number seems far too high. And it turns out, my intuition is correct. "Photo ID" appears to be a red herring. It's being used, while not necessary to get a voter's ID, to help inflate that number.


I think a more solid study on this more honest:



https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id



3 million? I can live with that. That's less than 1% of the population. Why is this voting iD thing being blown out of proportion? Why is it being passed off as some huge sort of injustice? It's a bullshit argument.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Wait really? I remember being taught in middle school that "cruel and usual" could be applied to the length of a term or how a court case proceeds. If not, it certainly should be.

Nope, we agree. And you're partially correct. Your particular point applies to minors - if they committed the crimes when minors, it would be cruel and unusual to sentence them to death (or something like that) or to life in prison for non-violent offenses. There was a supreme court case that ruled onthis. And I cannot remember it off the top of my head.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
I did read. The cost is worth it considering what else an ID allows you to do.
The government has no right to ask you to pay for a right.

Emperordmb
It has every right to demand you prove your citizenship before you can vote for the laws people in the nation live under.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The government has no right to ask you to pay for a right.
Do you also also apply that standard to the 2nd amendment?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Emperordmb
It has every right to demand you prove your citizenship before you can vote for the laws people in the nation live under.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Do you also also apply that standard to the 2nd amendment?

Emperordmb

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by darthgoober
Do you also also apply that standard to the 2nd amendment?
The second ammendement doesn't say you entitled to a gun, it says you have a right to purchase one.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb
It has every right to demand you prove your citizenship before you can vote for the laws people in the nation live under.
The government doesn't have rights. Any citizenship check needs to be free and easy to access for everyone. Otherwise it's an encroachment on the rights of the people.


What's up with the disparity in the numbers between my source and your source?

darthgoober
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The second ammendement doesn't say you entitled to a gun, it says you have a right to purchase one.
No "bear arms" means to have and use...

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/bear-arms


What's more, if "The government has no right to ask you to pay for a right.", it means they actually shouldn't tax you when you buy one.

Playmaker
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The second ammendement doesn't say you entitled to a gun, it says you have a right to purchase one.

No. It says the government can't infringe on your rights to keep and bare arms. The 2A doesn't grant you that right.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Playmaker
No. It says the government can't infringe on your rights to keep and bare arms. The 2A doesn't grant you that right.
"Can't infringe" doesn't mean it has to "give you" arms to bear.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by darthgoober


What's more, if "The government has no right to ask you to pay for a right.", it means they actually shouldn't tax you when you buy one.
Sure. But that applies to all taxes on private property. You could arrgue taxes are unconstitutional if you want.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Sure. But that applies to all taxes on private property. You could arrgue taxes are unconstitutional if you want.
Yeah you can make that argument, I'm asking if you yourseld DO make it in regards to guns since they're a right.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"Can't infringe" doesn't mean it has to "give you" arms to bear.
Yeah it just means they can't/shouldn't try to stop you... that's kind of the whole point. No one's asking for free guns from the government, only to continue being able to get them from merchants unimpeded.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.