Here is an article about the viewpoint that the Constitution has no power to prevent States from barring felons: http://tinyurl.com/6amch
Here is a counter-viewpoint that it is disenfranchisement: http://tinyurl.com/4bxtn My personal feelings a somewhat split on this issue. I like the idea of keeping the Constitution's powers limited. I feel though that the country now is a very different thing than it was when the Federalist/Anti-Federalist fights were happening and the State's independence was being protected. Having a disparity in how voter eligibility is determined leads to inequity in how the Federal government is represented. I see this as much a fight about punishment vs. rehabilitation and since I do believe that rehabilitation is possible, I do support in principle the ability of ex-felons having their right to vote reinstated. But that principle is independent of the Constitutional issue. -Kevin On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:26:02 -0500, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Explain the 26th (allowing 18 year olds to vote) the 14th (involving > voting within states) or the 13th (slavery) amendments then. And how > these violate the constitution. They all prevent the states from doing > certain things. > > larry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect your mail server with built in anti-virus protection. It's not only good for you, it's good for everybody. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=39 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:147757 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
