THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!

Avatar for mrsed4
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
THEY Can'ts HANDLE the Truth!
54
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 9:30pm
Fla. Lawmaker Says 2000 Election 'Stolen'

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Think the passions from the 2000 presidential election have cooled? Certainly not in the House, which voted Thursday to strike a Florida representative's words from the record after she said Republicans "stole" that closely fought contest.

The verbal battle broke out after Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., proposed a measure barring any federal official from requesting that the United Nations (news - web sites) formally observe the U.S. elections on Nov. 2.

Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., and several other House Democrats have made that suggestion. They argue that some black voters were disenfranchised in 2000 and problems could occur again this fall.

"We welcome America to observe the integrity of our electoral process and we do not ask, though, for the United Nations to come as monitors at our polling stations," Buyer said.

"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again," Brown said. "Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said, 'Get over it.' No, we're not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world."

At that point, Buyer demanded that Brown's words be "taken down," or removed the debate's permanent record.

The House's presiding officer, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ruled that Brown's words violated a House rule.

"Members should not accuse other members of committing a crime such as, quote, stealing, end quote, an election," Thornberry said.

When Brown objected to his ruling, the House voted 219-187 to strike her words.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_go_co/house_florida_fight_1&printer=1

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:03pm
Didn't miss it, it was just poorly phrased and poorly supported. The fact remains that the UN is supposed to be an international body, with international powers and authority. It either doesn't or shouldn't have "intranational powers", the power to mandate that the elections in a sovereign, member nation of the UN be monitored by the UN itself.

"If the criteria for getting the UN to supervise the elections is met, then the US will HAVE TO comply to it. PERIOD."

Wrong again. The US can refuse to allow such supervision. That might be in violation of the UN's request, but tough. It's not their job to supervise our elections.

"Not sure however what the criteria is, but then again people are just saying NO to it no matter what, even if the criteria would be fully met!"

Gee, and people wonder why the UN is held in such low regard, wanting it to keep out of the legal electoral processes of this country. The nerve of some people... LOL!

"What would be the harm in having it supervised?"

Have to laugh again, as that question is little different than asking "Why should anyone protest about subjected to unwarranted searches? If you've got nothing to hide why would it be a problem?".

The bottom line is that is isn't necessary, isn't their job, and I among others have no interest in them doing so.

"After all, everyone was saying that about Saddam. If he wasn't allowing inspectors in, then that meant he had something to hide. Well.. right back at you!"

And right back at you with a notice that you've once again created a fallacious analogy. Iraq was already subject to UN sanctions based on it's aforementioned invasion of Kuwait. The US is under no such set of UN sanctions in regards to it's actions in our own elections.

Care to try again? Perhaps with something of actual pertinence?

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:15pm

<>


It's only in the last 30 to 40 years when you could say that convicted felons gravitated to one party over another.


Dear Straight Dope:


Why can't felons vote? Doesn't this violate their constitutional rights? I read somewhere that 14% of all black males in this country can't vote! What's up with that? We let Congresspeople vote and not felons!? Where are our priorities? --Paul McCudden, Los Angeles


SDSTAFF Manny replies:


First, let's lay out the facts. Although some felons have been legally disenfranchised, others have not. Specifically, while only four states allow felons to vote while they are in prison, 18 allow felons to vote while they are on parole and 21 allow them to vote while on probation. Only 10 states permanently disenfranchise all felons and another handful do so to some ex-offenders or restore the ability to vote after a time limit. The Sentencing Project, a prisoner advocacy group, says that 13% of black males are disenfranchised under these laws. They're an advocacy group and their exact figure is subject to challenge, but let's not quibble over a few percentage points. Clearly, this is a big deal.


The simple answer to your question is that felons can't vote is because voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime. But the full story, as always, is more complex. Pull up a chair and light a cigar.


The voting history of the United States is mostly one of extending voting rights from the few to the many, not the other way around. Over the course of our Constitution, rights have been extended to non-whites (Amendment XV in 1870), to women (XIX in 1920), to people unable or unwilling to pay a poll tax (XXIV, 1964) and to people over the age of 18 (XXVI, 1971). Additionally, state laws extended the right to non-property owners and others. Felons mostly just never got out from the historical and common-law prohibitions against their ability to vote.


Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to other citizens going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece--this practice is laced throughout the common law that serves as the basis for U.S. law. Hey, at least we don't banish offenders any more.


The guiding case law currently is Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment gives the states clear permission to deny the vote to felons. The second part of the amendment essentially reduced a state's representation in Congress if the state has denied the right to vote to otherwise eligible citizens for any reason "except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." William Rehnquist, then a green associate justice, wrote for the majority that this language (and the accompanying legislative history) made it clear that the states may abridge the rights of those convicted of "other crimes." Given your point about black males' voting rights, it is interesting to note that one purpose of the 14th Amendment was to encourage states to extend voting rights to newly-freed slaves. If you ever write a song about irony, you'll want a list of words that rhyme with Ramirez.


"That's not fair!" you say. Well, here's a glimmer of hope. In Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985), the court found that the right to disenfranchise felons was not absolute. Specifically, the court found that a disenfranchisement law reflecting "purposeful racial discrimination" was not constitutional. So if one could show that the pattern of convictions of blacks vs. whites in the war on drugs or otherwise showed "purposeful racial discrimination," one might be able to get Wild Bill and the Supremes to reconsider. When you go to argue the case, be sure to point out that states with tough anti-felon laws tend to be located in the South and that a lot of these laws were beefed up around the turn of the century to include crimes thought to be more commonly committed by blacks. But you probably won't win. Your better bet is to get a change to the laws of your state. Good luck--not a lot of legislators want to put "I'll give felons more rights!" on their campaign posters. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfelonvote.html

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:17pm
Pot calling the kettle black! How about that 'poor analogy" of comparing OBSERVING elections when the request is FROM THAT COUNTRY to "unwarranted searches"!

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/JOhnsonUrgesPowellToRequestElectionMonitor.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:19pm
Good post and link... thanks. nt
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:23pm
Not hardly. Both situations involve asking the question of "Why not?" when the question which should be asked is "Why?", and both situations imply the suspicion of wrongdoing in the absence of objective evidence for it.

The link, btw, is from a representative from Texas to Powell, not from the US government to the UN requesting oversight of the election.

Anything else?

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:39pm
The point of the link was that it explained what the criteria was for making an official request.

She is AN AMERICAN, no? She is making the request that there be an official request by the proper government authorities, although I understand that there are other 'valid reasons' for getting the UN to observe an election.

Do you think that any despot out there will ever ask the UN to observe elections in his country? I think NOT! In those cases, it is requested by citizens, or deemed necessary because of past irregularities. Mind you, I AM NOT SAYING this is the situation in the US, I am merely stating that the UN's criteria can not only be that the incumbent government requests it.

Sorry, but having Americans asking to have THEIR elections observed DOES NOT COMPARE to having someone's house searched without a warrant! I stand by my statement.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 07-20-2004 - 2:53pm
Yes, I read the information in the link. She was requesting that our SecState make the request to the UN.

"Do you think that any despot out there will ever ask the UN to observe elections in his country? I think NOT!"

Probably not. That isn't, however, the situation here, now is it?

"Sorry, but having Americans asking to have THEIR elections observed DOES NOT COMPARE to having someone's house searched without a warrant!"

Go back to your post. You posed the question, "why wouldn't anyone want the election to have UN oversight?". THAT'S what I was responding to, not any theoretical request by the SecState to have the election supervised. That's not the same as stating that such oversight had been requested by the government, nor that it was warranted in connection with sanctions already in place against the country in question. In that regard it is along the same lines as my analogy to searches and someone asking "Why not?". In both cases the operable question should more properly involve "Why?", not "Why not?".

Stand by your statement if you wish. It's as questionable as your analogy utilizing the US as it is today and Iraq as it was under UN sanction and resolutions.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 8:55am
"Not allowing them to own firearms, now that actually makes sense!"

We have several laws that “punish” people for life for certain crimes after their release: Banning gun ownership, Megan’s Law, Driving privileges, and voting privileges in some states . I don’t really think of these laws as so much as punishment, but more as people that have shown a lack of ability to handle such responsibility and have had the responsibility taken away.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 10:38am
Thanks for the info.However I can't help but note that all BUT the voting rights has something to do with protecting citizens against a recurrence of a crime. Drinking, making it known that the person is a molestor, gun ownership.. Somehow 'voting rights' just doesn't fit in that set... in my humble opinion.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 12:08pm


Whether they fit in your opinion or not, the citizens of the states which have such laws have decided that they deem it a fitting punishment. The law is in place before someone chooses to commit a felony-they ought to know that committing a felony will deprive them of their voting rights, and if they don't, well as they say ignorance of the law is no defense. Once again, committing a felony is a choice and if one chooses the crime they choose the punishment, whether we agree with the punishment or not.