Virginia’s Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe has enabled more than 200,000 ex-cons who have completed their sentences to register to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

They wasted no time. Already over 20,000 names of felons have been registered in Virginia. Included on the list are these:

Robert Charles Gleason, Jr.
Jerry Terrell Jackson
Teresa Lewis
Darick Demorris Walker

While all four are no longer in prison, their sentences ended while Governor McDonnell was in office, McDonnell did everything he could to ensure that their voting rights would never be restored.

McAuliffe restored felon voting rights in April in an attempt to make Virginia solid blue for Hillary Clinton. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is not checking whether other situations would preclude the felons listed from voting this November.

These ex-inmates have paid their debt to society. What's your beef with them, aside from your assumption that they vote for Democrats?

Just another Whining republicantard.

While they were all executed they are still able to vote under McAwful's new bill

So they did not think to remove the men who were executed from the list?

Hey Whiners, guess you are ok with men who committed a crime bad enough to be executed to be able to vote. Guess you should have looked up the names first before opening your big fucking mouth.

Voting Lists Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virginia’s Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe
> has enabled more than 200,000 ex-cons who have
> completed their sentences to register to vote in
> the upcoming presidential election.
>
> They wasted no time. Already over 20,000 names of
> felons have been registered in Virginia.

Attachments:

We may need Brian S. to weigh in on this, but technically, there is no law prohibiting McAuliffe from adding executed criminals to the voting lists. Though there might be a problem when his cronies ask for and return an absentee ballot in their names.

No problems Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These ex-inmates have paid their debt to society.
> What's your beef with them, aside from your
> assumption that they vote for Democrats?


So, you are OK if they want to go and buy a gun?

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No problems Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > These ex-inmates have paid their debt to
> society.
> > What's your beef with them, aside from your
> > assumption that they vote for Democrats?
>
> So, you are OK if they want to go and buy a gun?

No. Are you?

T-Mac Daddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> picking your rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No problems Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > These ex-inmates have paid their debt to
> > society.
> > > What's your beef with them, aside from your
> > > assumption that they vote for Democrats?
> >
> > So, you are OK if they want to go and buy a
> gun?
>
> No. Are you?


Can't whine about their voting rights being taken away if you aren't willing to restore their 2nd Amendment rights.

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T-Mac Daddy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > picking your rights Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No problems Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > These ex-inmates have paid their debt to
> > > society.
> > > > What's your beef with them, aside from your
> > > > assumption that they vote for Democrats?
> > >
> > > So, you are OK if they want to go and buy a
> > gun?
> >
> > No. Are you?
>
>
> Can't whine about their voting rights being taken
> away if you aren't willing to restore their 2nd
> Amendment rights.


We'll trust that a black man will vote Democratic. But we don't trust them with a gun.

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't whine about their voting rights being taken
> away if you aren't willing to restore their 2nd
> Amendment rights.

Who's whining?

T-Mac Daddy restored ex-con's voting rights. 20,000+ have registered.

It's a done deal.

T-Mac Daddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> picking your rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can't whine about their voting rights being
> taken
> > away if you aren't willing to restore their 2nd
> > Amendment rights.
>
> Who's whining?
>
> T-Mac Daddy restored ex-con's voting rights.
> 20,000+ have registered.
>
> It's a done deal.


When I gets my gun back?

Tyronne Shabazz Washington Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I gets my gun back?

Who took your gun away, Tyronne?

T-Mac Daddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> picking your rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can't whine about their voting rights being
> taken
> > away if you aren't willing to restore their 2nd
> > Amendment rights.
>
> Who's whining?
>
> T-Mac Daddy restored ex-con's voting rights.
> 20,000+ have registered.
>
> It's a done deal.

It's far from a done deal. Violating the sate constitution has consequences.

Nevertheless, why do you support restoring their voting rights yet still deny them their 2nd Amendment rights?? Seems to be a double standard.

T-Mac Daddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tyronne Shabazz Washington Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When I gets my gun back?
>
> Who took your gun away, Tyronne?


The white devil's system man.

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T-Mac Daddy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > picking your rights Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Can't whine about their voting rights being
> > taken
> > > away if you aren't willing to restore their
> 2nd
> > > Amendment rights.
> >
> > Who's whining?
> >
> > T-Mac Daddy restored ex-con's voting rights.
> > 20,000+ have registered.
> >
> > It's a done deal.
>
> It's far from a done deal. Violating the sate
> constitution has consequences.

Please explain how the Governor's order violates the 'sate' constitution.

> Nevertheless, why do you support restoring their
> voting rights yet still deny them their 2nd
> Amendment rights?? Seems to be a double standard.

Please explain why you believe voting rights and second amendment rights are analogous.

Citizen Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please explain how the Governor's order violates
> the 'sate' constitution.

A 2010 letter to the ACLU from an attorney for Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, stated that a blanket restoration of rights would amount to a “troubling” rewrite of state law and the Constitution.

> Please explain why you believe voting rights and
> second amendment rights are analogous.

Are not both rights not secured by the Constitution?

Why are you for restoring one right and not the other?

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Citizen Joe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Please explain how the Governor's order
> violates
> > the 'sate' constitution.
>
> A 2010 letter to the ACLU from an attorney for
> Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, stated that a
> blanket restoration of rights would amount to a
> “troubling” rewrite of state law and the
> Constitution.

How so?

> > Please explain why you believe voting rights
> and
> > second amendment rights are analogous.
>
> Are not both rights not secured by the
> Constitution?

Yes, they are.

> Why are you for restoring one right and not the other?

Because not all Constitutionally-secured rights are analogous.

Citizen Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > A 2010 letter to the ACLU from an attorney for
> > Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, stated that
> a
> > blanket restoration of rights would amount to a
> > “troubling” rewrite of state law and the
> > Constitution.
>
> How so?

Ask Senator Kaine. He's the one who said it.

> Because not all Constitutionally-secured rights
> are analogous.

Really? Please explain.

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Citizen Joe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > A 2010 letter to the ACLU from an attorney
> for
> > > Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, stated
> that
> > a
> > > blanket restoration of rights would amount to
> a
> > > “troubling” rewrite of state law and the
> > > Constitution.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Ask Senator Kaine. He's the one who said it.

Read Article II, Section I, of the Constitution. Restoration of voting rights to felons is well within Gov. McAuliffe's Constitutional powers.

> > Because not all Constitutionally-secured rights
> > are analogous.
>
> Really? Please explain.

VA felons can have their 2nd amendment rights restored.

Here's how: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_Restoration.shtm

Citizen Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> picking your rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Citizen Joe Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > > A 2010 letter to the ACLU from an attorney
> > for
> > > > Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, stated
> > that
> > > a
> > > > blanket restoration of rights would amount
> to
> > a
> > > > “troubling” rewrite of state law and
> the
> > > > Constitution.
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > Ask Senator Kaine. He's the one who said it.
>
> Read Article II, Section I, of the Constitution.
> Restoration of voting rights to felons is well
> within Gov. McAuliffe's Constitutional powers.

Not if you read it in the singular which is how it is supposed to be read.

> > > Because not all Constitutionally-secured
> rights
> > > are analogous.
> >
> > Really? Please explain.
>
> VA felons can have their 2nd amendment rights
> restored.
>
> Here's how:
> http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_Restoration.sh
> tm

Well, that's how you used to get your voting rights back too. He should have restored all 2nd Amendment rights in his blanket restoration of voting rights. It is hypocritical to not do so, unless, of course, you're a Democrat.

picking your rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Citizen Joe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Read Article II, Section I, of the
> Constitution.
> > Restoration of voting rights to felons is well
> > within Gov. McAuliffe's Constitutional powers.
>
> Not if you read it in the singular which is how it
> is supposed to be read.

"No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority."

Any way you read that sentence, the Governor is the only state official empowered to restore civil rights to felons; and, that sentence neither states nor implies the manor in which such restoration must, or even should, be made.

> Well, that's how you used to get your voting
> rights back too. He should have restored all 2nd
> Amendment rights in his blanket restoration of
> voting rights. It is hypocritical to not do so,
> unless, of course, you're a Democrat.

It's not hypocritical at all. Voting is a civil right, the 2nd Amendment is not. Do you understand the difference?

Because the nature of the felon's offence (e.g.; whether it was violent, involved a weapon, etc.) should be considered in the decision, it makes sense to consider restoration of 2nd Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis.

Technicality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We may need Brian S. to weigh in on this, but
> technically, there is no law prohibiting McAuliffe
> from adding executed criminals to the voting
> lists. Though there might be a problem when his
> cronies ask for and return an absentee ballot in
> their names.

This is true. But they'd be removed as soon as a registrar figured out they were dead.

I don't have a problem with McAuliffe restoring voting rights to felons who have finished their sentences completely. The problem is that he can't do it in a blanket fashion - Kaine said so, and the text of the Constitution seems to indicate an expectation that this done on a case by case basis.

It's a shortcut, and one that's arguably unconstitutional. As usual, cutting corners causes problems.

I think once felons' debts are paid to society their voting rights should be restored; time to let them move on and start over. That said, Terry's timing just before a national election in a swing state is just typical of his carpetbagging and dodgy behavior. I would have least waited until January.

Citizen Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> picking your rights Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Citizen Joe Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Read Article II, Section I, of the
> > Constitution.
> > > Restoration of voting rights to felons is
> well
> > > within Gov. McAuliffe's Constitutional
> powers.
> >
> > Not if you read it in the singular which is how
> it
> > is supposed to be read.
>
> "No person who has been convicted of a felony
> shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights
> have been restored by the Governor or other
> appropriate authority."
>
> Any way you read that sentence, the Governor is
> the only state official empowered to restore civil
> rights to felons; and, that sentence neither
> states nor implies the manor in which such
> restoration must, or even should, be made.
>
> > Well, that's how you used to get your voting
> > rights back too. He should have restored all
> 2nd
> > Amendment rights in his blanket restoration of
> > voting rights. It is hypocritical to not do
> so,
> > unless, of course, you're a Democrat.
>
> It's not hypocritical at all. Voting is a civil
> right, the 2nd Amendment is not. Do you understand
> the difference?
>
> Because the nature of the felon's offence (e.g.;
> whether it was violent, involved a weapon, etc.)
> should be considered in the decision, it makes
> sense to consider restoration of 2nd Amendment
> rights on a case-by-case basis.


What makes you think that a civil right trumps (no pun intended) any right?

Would you try to make the same case for their right to expression or assembly?

Citizen Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "No person who has been convicted of a felony
> shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights
> have been restored by the Governor or other
> appropriate authority."
>
> Any way you read that sentence, the Governor is
> the only state official empowered to restore civil
> rights to felons; and, that sentence neither
> states nor implies the manor in which such
> restoration must, or even should, be made.

You can't just look at that one section. The rules for executive clemency make clear this is expected to be done case-by-case.

Article V. Executive

Section 12. Executive clemency
The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.

He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.

'Remove political disabilities' means restoration of voting rights. It can't mean anything else, except perhaps running for office.

As for the second amendment, those are civil rights too. The language in the second amendment is the same as in others that would be considered civil rights, like the 15th amendment.

Voting Lists Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virginia’s Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe
> has enabled more than 200,000 ex-cons who have
> completed their sentences to register to vote in
> the upcoming presidential election.
>
> They wasted no time. Already over 20,000 names of
> felons have been registered in Virginia. Included
> on the list are these:
>
> Robert Charles Gleason, Jr.
> Jerry Terrell Jackson
> Teresa Lewis
> Darick Demorris Walker
>
> While all four are no longer in prison, their
> sentences ended while Governor McDonnell was in
> office, McDonnell did everything he could to
> ensure that their voting rights would never be
> restored.
>
> McAuliffe restored felon voting rights in April in
> an attempt to make Virginia solid blue for Hillary
> Clinton. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring
> is not checking whether other situations would
> preclude the felons listed from voting this
> November.

Libs defending the rights of dead people to vote. Gotta love it.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the second amendment, those are civil rights too. The language
> in the second amendment is the same as in others that would be considered
> civil rights, like the 15th amendment.

2nd -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

15th -- The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.

By "the same as", you may have meant "completely different from." In any case, while states and their abusive local majorities were foolishly left by the founders with a hand in the voting rights cookie jar, the Constitution mentions the right to vote five times -- more than any other. And as our population has become less white and less Christian, it has of course been the rights-hating right-wing that has energetically tried to "purify" the electorate by working to deny the franchise to more and more people and groups perceived as being unlikely to vote Republican. It's all an effort at voter-suppression -- an international disgrace that only a senseless right-winger could love.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Citizen Joe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > "No person who has been convicted of a felony
> > shall be qualified to vote unless his civil
> rights
> > have been restored by the Governor or other
> > appropriate authority."
> >
> > Any way you read that sentence, the Governor is
> > the only state official empowered to restore
> civil
> > rights to felons; and, that sentence neither
> > states nor implies the manor in which such
> > restoration must, or even should, be made.
>
> You can't just look at that one section. The rules
> for executive clemency make clear this is expected
> to be done case-by-case.

I disagree Brian. It is clear to me that Section 12 creates no such expectation of individual consideration.

Section 12 states that the governor report to the General Assembly "particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same."

"Case" here means instance, as in the governor's order restoring voting rights to felons, rather than your interpretation..

Get a grip... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As for the second amendment, those are civil
> rights too. The language
> > in the second amendment is the same as in others
> that would be considered
> > civil rights, like the 15th amendment.
>
> 2nd -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary
> to the security of a free State, the right of the
> people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
> 15th -- The right of citizens of the United States
> to vote shall not be denied or
> abridged by the United States or by any State on
> account of race, color, or
> previous condition of servitude.
>
> By "the same as", you may have meant "completely
> different from." In any case, while states and
> their abusive local majorities were foolishly left
> by the founders with a hand in the voting rights
> cookie jar, the Constitution mentions the right to
> vote five times -- more than any other. And as
> our population has become less white and less
> Christian, it has of course been the rights-hating
> right-wing that has energetically tried to
> "purify" the electorate by working to deny the
> franchise to more and more people and groups
> perceived as being unlikely to vote Republican.
> It's all an effort at voter-suppression -- an
> international disgrace that only a senseless
> right-winger could love.


Look at the form:

"The right ... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The right ... to vote shall not be denied or abridged ..."

These are both clearly civil rights.

Citizen Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Citizen Joe Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > "No person who has been convicted of a felony
> > > shall be qualified to vote unless his civil
> > rights
> > > have been restored by the Governor or other
> > > appropriate authority."
> > >
> > > Any way you read that sentence, the Governor
> is
> > > the only state official empowered to restore
> > civil
> > > rights to felons; and, that sentence neither
> > > states nor implies the manor in which such
> > > restoration must, or even should, be made.
> >
> > You can't just look at that one section. The
> rules
> > for executive clemency make clear this is
> expected
> > to be done case-by-case.
>
> I disagree Brian. It is clear to me that Section
> 12 creates no such expectation of individual
> consideration.
>
> Section 12 states that the governor report to the
> General Assembly "particulars of every case
> of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon
> granted, and of punishment commuted, with his
> reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the
> same."
>
> "Case" here means instance, as in the governor's
> order restoring voting rights to felons, rather
> than your interpretation..

I disagree - case, when modified by things like "particulars" has to be tied to an individual. Each case is different, each individual's decision is different.

I think it's clear based on Section 12 that the Governor could not issue a blanket pardon of everyone who has committed a non-violent drug crime, for instance, without specifying specifically each case and why he was doing so.

Like Tim Kaine's counsel noted in his letter, which you can read at http://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/RubinLetterJan2010.pdf, there's no indication that there was ever contemplated blanket pardons, commutations or removal of political disabilities in the way the Governor did this.

Terry knows better than ALL the lawmakers in the General Assembly. Of course he does. That's why this was done by "executive order".

Article IV. Legislature
Section 17. Impeachment

The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, judges, members of the State Corporation Commission, and all officers appointed by the Governor or elected by the General Assembly, offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor may be impeached by the House of Delegates and prosecuted before the Senate, which shall have the sole power to try impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Commonwealth; but the person convicted shall nevertheless be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. The Senate may sit during the recess of the General Assembly for the trial of impeachments.

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article4/section17/

Tim Kaine says McAuliffe is outside the law in this action.

But McAuliffe is a Clintonite.

The law does not matter.