Should Convicted J6ers Be Prevented from Voting? (Page 2): Artz did not propose a NEW law. He said he favored not letting them vote (for named reasons). That is quite different from...

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

pendennis wrote:

ArtzDarkroom implied a new law, which would be Unconstitutional, even if they met other conditions.

Artz did not propose a NEW law. He said he favored not letting them vote (for named reasons). That is quite different from creating a new ‘after-the-fact’ (ex post facto) law.

Those individuals convicted of felony crimes against the United States are now FELONS. As such they are restricted from voting.

The convicted or incarcerated FELONS, adjudged of various charges, will have records that may prevent them from voting, depending, evidently, on state of residency.

”An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.” — Wikipedia

My point was to detail what laws CURRENTLY exist, and the differences between states. Federal restrictions may be different.

” In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation.
Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens.
As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.”. — Wikipedia

A Supreme Court decision concerning felons is:

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki Richardson v. Ramirez

gorgehiker Loc: Lexington, Ky

srg wrote:

New York is so evil (liberal) that they even allow aliens from other galaxies to vote.

Yeah, that must be what you learned from your "fake news".

pendennis

Wyantry wrote:

Artz did not propose a NEW law. He said he favored not letting them vote (for named reasons). That is quite different from creating a new ‘after-the-fact’ (ex post facto) law.

Those individuals convicted of felony crimes against the United States are now FELONS. As such they are restricted from voting.

The convicted or incarcerated FELONS, adjudged of various charges, will have records that may prevent them from voting, depending, evidently, on state of residency.

”An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.” — Wikipedia

My point was to detail what laws CURRENTLY exist, and the differences between states. Federal restrictions may be different.

” In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation.
Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens.
As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.”. — Wikipedia

A Supreme Court decision concerning felons is:

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki Richardson v. Ramirez

u Artz did not propose a NEW law. He said he u ... (show quote)

You're rambling, and you missed my point. Artz statement would require a new law, since he stated that those convicted of January 6th rioting should not be allowed to vote. I did not state, nor imply, that there should be super-legislation addressing this. In fact, there were NO convictions for insurrection. Why not? Those participants did nothing that was any worse than the rioters did on January 20, 2017. Those convicted of rioting have been punished far more severely than others committing similar crimes. Here's a hint - The rioters weren't armed for an insurrection. A judge would likely have laughed the case out of court. You can't have an insurrection without arms.

The biggest question remains - Why didn't Nancy Pelosi call up the National Guard, when asked to do so by President Trump? She's the one who needs to be expelled from Congress and prosecuted.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

pendennis wrote:

You're rambling, and you missed my point. Artz st... (show quote)

ArtzDarkroom wrote:
“In the case of convicted J6ers/insurrectionists. I would favor not letting them vote since they have tried to violate the peaceful transfer of power.”

Pendennis stated: “ArtzDarkroom implied a new law, which would be Unconstitutional, even if they met other conditions.”

Given that you (Pendennis) stated ArtzDarkroom “implied” this would require a new law was what I answered.

If any of the rioters was convicted of a FELONY they would be automatically disallowed the vote.