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

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 12:27pm
I agree with you. My thoughts are that in general (not just voting rights of felons), in a democracy, we need to be particularily watchful when those that we elect change the laws affecting essentially the application of democracy, as these then can later affect who can win in the next elections. So changes such as who gets excluded, how votes are counted, the whole issue of proportional representation are very 'tricky' because they can be self-serving for one party or another. That even included in the past voting rights for women, because lots of people were concerned that they would vote more 'liberal' than men.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 3:28am
They all seem related to me:

Drinking while driving = pulling license

Sex offender = disallowing them around children and informing the community they live of their crime

a felony violent crime = unable to carry hand guns

felonies (a displayed lack of respect or ability to follow the law) = loss of voting priviledges (disallowing to take part in creating laws or electing those that write them)

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 10:19am
Not to beat an old horse, but how much 'damage' to the community or citizens can some former felons do by voting??? A bit different then the other restrictions, don't you think? Bear in mind that the repeat felons could not care less about politics, and probably don't vote anyhow. The ones that would want to vote again are the ones who are 'reformed' and want to contribute to society. From my perspective, voting is a duty more than it is a right.

Do you really think some drug-addicted repeat felon cares if he can vote again? If someone wants to vote again, it's probably a sign that he/she is now a working, tax-paying citizen, and wants to do his 'duty' by voting.

Again, my opinion...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:25pm
Most are probably as you’ve described, but regardless I still don’t want them afforded this avenue to have the ability to influence our laws. It should no longer be their choice to decide. There are a host of white collar felons in prison these days and they are the types that vote; the Mike Milikin, Al Capone, and probably soon to be added some Enron or Tyco executives. There are also a number that are felons that were never convicted but still should not have the right to vote. Those would be the Bill and Hillary Clinton types that escaped prosecution only through political means;)

"If someone wants to vote again, it's probably a sign that he/she is now a working, tax-paying citizen, and wants to do his 'duty' by voting."

I’m not an expert on how each state handles voting law, but my understanding is that even if someone loses their voting rights for “life” they can still petition their state after a period of time to have voting rights reinstated. I tend to believe that if the state believes the x-felon has “cleaned up their act” they will reinstate them on the voting roles. Just my understanding.

Pages