Democrats give Voting Rights to Florida's Convicts, Criminals and Felons

[reagansghost]

The good people of america swallow bullshit and like it.

well at least 1/3 do, teabillies

[Bigdog]

it only makes sense though.

The good people of America see right through their bullshit, so they have to pull extra votes from somewhere.

These criminals had only lost their voting rights in Florida. If they wanted to vote, they could have simply moved to another State.

Leftist arguments fail, so they want to change the demographics instead.

Suddenly, they have no problem with the poor, uneducated and working class they rail against ... as they encourage Caravans full of just such people.

[Old Trapper]

No mention of abolishing inheritance rights, Liar.


And, ... Funny how Monticello.org, the penultimate authority on Jefferson quotes, does NOT include it.

http://tjrs.monticello.org/?_ga=2.15...059.1542130409

I quite well understand how low IQ individuals like you lack the understanding to face reality. In that situation you actually have to know how to read, and comprehend words with more them 4 letters, and you actually have to read sources of information. Like this one:


Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
The Stewardship Doctrine:
II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their Contemporaries
B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct and Entail

If the earth is truly viewed as an intergenerational commons, there are serious implications for the law governing estates and the descent of lands. Indeed, fervent debates were occurring in regards to estate law during the late 18th century. Those debates focused primarily on the institutions of entail f144 and primogeniture. f145

The practice of entail was problematic from the perspective of intergenerational ethics. On the one hand, entail could be viewed as an archaic, feudal practice imposed by earlier generations, which violated later generations' sovereignty over the land. f146 Entail and primogeniture imposed potentially perpetual restraints on the alienation of land, and could result in useful agricultural land being tied up indefinitely. The institution was therefore resented by progressives sympathetic to the free market economics being advocated by Adam Smith and others. f147 In language quite suggestive to the modern ear, Smith suggested that:

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." f148

On the other hand, entail was in some respects the quintessentially intergenerational institution; operating in tandem with the doctrine of waste, it compelled present landholders to respect the interests of future holders. The occupant of an entailed estate was expected to consume only the usufruct of the estate, to eschew waste, and to preserve the corpus intact and undamaged for later owners. It is this aspect of entail that Herbert Sloan has in mind when he describes Jefferson's intergenerational philosophy as "proposing a universal and perpetual entail." f149

Unfortunately, the benefits and protections of entail were reserved for those fortunate few who held future interests in the ancestral estates. In that sense, entail treated the earth more as an intergenerational gated community than as a intergenerational commons.

Whatever the shortcomings of the traditional entail system, is clear that the founders did not intend to abandon the principle of responsible land stewardship when they abandoned entail. The principles of stewardship were held in deep respect; the same figures who worked to abolish entail consistently used the language of waste and usufruct when explaining their intergenerational visions. But, probably due to a lack of foresight, the founders failed to develop new mechanisms for enforcing land stewardship when they dismantled the entail system.

Some of the founders were not satisfied with curtailing entail and primogeniture; they advocated more radical measures for rectifying the imbalance in access to the intergenerational commons. Paine argued that the poor had in effect been wrongfully ousted and excluded from their natural legacy for many generations. f150 He maintained that no segment of the population ever possessed a right to the "monopoly of natural inheritance" and that, "a generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished."f151 He therefore proposed that a "ground rent" be imposed upon all real property, to be collected at the time the property passed from one person to another at death, the monies to be placed into funds for each citizen when he or she reaches the age of 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."f152 By characterizing the charge as "ground-rent" rather than as an estate tax or property tax, Paine reinforced the idea that land ownership is not really ownership at all, but rather resembles a tenancy or trust relationship.

[Granule]

well at least 1/3 do, teabillies

Rave on, pervert.

Go drop your gay lover a line in maximum security.

[reagansghost]

Rave on, pervert.

Go drop your gay lover a line in maximum security.

thought you might be in prison

[Old Trapper]

Just in addition to the above:

"Rights of Usufruct and Future Generations" Jefferson in a letter to James Madison

"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle.

[Mott the Hoople]

Democrats, the party of criminals

"Florida restores voting rights to more than 1 million felons - CNNPolitics
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/polit...hts/index.html
3 hours ago - (CNN) Florida has approved an amendment that will automatically restore voting rights to more than a million people previously convicted ... "

Congrats Bigdog....you still rank as one of JPP's least literate posters.

You bloody moron! The overwhelming majority of States return voting rights to convicts after they have completed their sentences and probation/parole.

There are only a handful of States that do permanently disqualifies felons. If you weren't such a moron you'd see the obvious reason why the vast majority of States do restore voting rights.

You're fucking hilarious Dog. Do you ever vet your stupid assed posts? LOL LOL LOL What a maroon! LOL

[Mott the Hoople]

Ruh roh!

Stupid post of the day. So far.

In light of the utter stupidity of the OP...not hardly. LOL LOL LOL

[Mott the Hoople]

I don’t really have a problem with this. Forget the fact that you believe they will be reliably democrat voters. If someone has paid their debt to society why should they be prohibited from ever voting again?

I really don’t understand the logic behind it.

Not to mention it can be a tool to help motivate ex-cons from recidivism.

[Nordberg]

Bigpig and rightys are not talking on principle. If they were sure Repub votes ,they would be a bastion of fairness fighting for the rights of people who served their time and paid their debts to society. Their asses are in a snit because they think they are likely Dem voters. Nobody is being fooled .They want to gerrymander prisons and have portable gerrymanders for ex cons.

[SmarterthanYou]

I think that the Dems should give the convicts, criminals, and felons ALL their rights back, including their right to keep and bear arms. All rights are basic and fundamental and should not be singled out for exclusion based upon an idiots political ideology or phobias.

[mak2]

That is what this is all about. Selling more guns.

I think that the Dems should give the convicts, criminals, and felons ALL their rights back, including their right to keep and bear arms. All rights are basic and fundamental and should not be singled out for exclusion based upon an idiots political ideology or phobias.

[LV426]

Look at it this way...

Once Trump finishes his sentence and goes to Florida, he'll be able to vote there.

[LV426]

I think that the Dems should give the convicts, criminals, and felons ALL their rights back, including their right to keep and bear arms. All rights are basic and fundamental and should not be singled out for exclusion based upon an idiots political ideology or phobias.

Keep and bear arms to what end?

Is the Queen of England planning another invasion?

[mak2]

The first time I ever heard of this felon getting voting rights back was on a crazy far right forum and they were talking about people who have done their time getting their firearms back.