The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: SPQR on February 12, 2014, 07:42:04 am
-
US Attorney General Eric Holder is insisting that states allow former prisoners to vote. “It is time to fundamentally reconsider laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision,” Holder said during a speech he gave yesterday morning at Georgetown University Law Center. Presently, 11 states do not let ex-prisoners vote ever again, even if they are not on probation.
Holder highlighted that there are 1 in 5 black adults in Florida, Kentucky, and Alabama who are not granted permission to vote due to their criminal convictions. Nationwide, 5.8 million people are denied the right to vote because of their past felonies.
The Attorney General made clear in his speech about present voting bans in a larger historical relation. “Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African-Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable,” he told the audience. On a national level, he claims that 1 in 13 black adults do not have the right to vote due to laws regarding disenfranchisement.
Holder strongly urged that by letting ex-cons vote, the policy could be a vital part of successfully reintegrating them back into society. "By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes," he said. He ended by speaking about, convict disenfranchisement, “It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values. These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.”
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_12/US-Attorney-General-proposes-states-allow-ex-felons-to-vote-7271/
-
Will he include those who reside in cemeteries? :whistle:
-
This is not a half-bad idea, at least in outline form. One of the basic arguments for punishing crime the way we do is to rehabilitate the offender; by necessary implication, then, when an offender's punishment ceases, that offender is rehabilitated, until and unless he or she proves otherwise. If rehabilitated, then such an offender is now qualified to resume his or her place in civil society and that place necessarily includes the right to vote. Recidivists, particularly if they go from bad to worse, could reaonably be excluded, but I see no reason why someone who is ostensibly rehabilitated should be denied the rights that a full member of civil society otherwise possesses.
-
This is not a half-bad idea, at least in outline form. One of the basic arguments for punishing crime the way we do is to rehabilitate the offender; by necessary implication, then, when an offender's punishment ceases, that offender is rehabilitated, until and unless he or she proves otherwise. If rehabilitated, then such an offender is now qualified to resume his or her place in civil society and that place necessarily includes the right to vote. Recidivists, particularly if they go from bad to worse, could reaonably be excluded, but I see no reason why someone who is ostensibly rehabilitated should be denied the rights that a full member of civil society otherwise possesses.
We know who these people will vote for. They will vote for Democrats
-
We know who these people will vote for. They will vote for Democrats
That does not matter. If they have paid for their crime, in full, they have paid. Their choice of vote is between them and the voting booth.
I would prevent anyone who has not paid in full from voting. Early release on parole, for example? You can't vote until the parole period is over. Governor's pardon? You can't vote until your term is up, regardless.
-
That does not matter. If they have paid for their crime, in full, they have paid. Their choice of vote is between them and the voting booth.
I would prevent anyone who has not paid in full from voting. Early release on parole, for example? You can't vote until the parole period is over. Governor's pardon? You can't vote until your term is up, regardless.
I do not want a rapist or child molester voting at all.Convicted felons have demonstrated poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.Convicted prisoners have had their right to freedom revoked by not following the regulations their society has put in place. They should not then have say in how that society is governed. They must realise that those are the consequences of their offence.
-
There are too many things which pass for felonious behavior these days. Many of which, John or Jane Q. Public commit and average of 3 times a day, without even realizing it. Considering "ignorance is no excuse", the prisons would be full.
-
I do not want a rapist or child molester voting at all.Convicted felons have demonstrated poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.Convicted prisoners have had their right to freedom revoked by not following the regulations their society has put in place. They should not then have say in how that society is governed. They must realise that those are the consequences of their offence.
I have zero desire in child molesters continuing to breathe.
But no. You are doing what the left do. Setting limits. If you wish to do that, do it properly. Me - I'd only permit property owning tax payers to vote, but that's just me.
-
I think each citizen should get votes commensurate with the amount in taxes he pays. This should apply at every level. If I pay $40K in taxes, then I get 40 votes, someone who pays $1K gets one vote, and so forth. If you get tax credits, entitlements or are a government worker, you get no votes at that level. State employees wouldn't be allowed to vote in state elections, federal employees wouldn't be allowed to vote in federal elections, etc.
I am employed by the state of Pennsylvania, but I would readily support this proposal.
-
There are too many things which pass for felonious behavior these days. Many of which, John or Jane Q. Public commit and average of 3 times a day, without even realizing it. Considering "ignorance is no excuse", the prisons would be full.
Convicted felons should not retain the right to vote because they broke the law in a serious way.Convicted felons are in prison for a reason. They committed a crime that was of an extremely serious nature, whether it be robbing a bank, killing someone, raping someone, grand theft auto, etc. They did not make a level-headed decision and ended up in jail. We do not need these type of people voting for the people that run our country. They obviously could not make a decision governing their own lives, so we should definitely not allow them to make those kind of decisions for the rest of us.If they don't respect it then why should they care what laws are made. Also, who knows if once they come out that they won't break the law again.
-
Convicted felons should not retain the right to vote because they broke the law in a serious way.Convicted felons are in prison for a reason. They committed a crime that was of an extremely serious nature, whether it be robbing a bank, killing someone, raping someone, grand theft auto, etc. They did not make a level-headed decision and ended up in jail. We do not need these type of people voting for the people that run our country. They obviously could not make a decision governing their own lives, so we should definitely not allow them to make those kind of decisions for the rest of us.If they don't respect it then why should they care what laws are made. Also, who knows if once they come out that they won't break the law again.
I don't discount there are some very nasty people who share our air.
-
Convicted felons should not retain the right to vote because they broke the law in a serious way.Convicted felons are in prison for a reason. They committed a crime that was of an extremely serious nature, whether it be robbing a bank, killing someone, raping someone, grand theft auto, etc. They did not make a level-headed decision and ended up in jail. We do not need these type of people voting for the people that run our country. They obviously could not make a decision governing their own lives, so we should definitely not allow them to make those kind of decisions for the rest of us.If they don't respect it then why should they care what laws are made. Also, who knows if once they come out that they won't break the law again.
So the whole "pay your debt to society" thing is just so much sloganeering.
-
IMO.....you serve your term...you should regain ALL your rights and privileges as a citizen...WHICH INCLUDES VOTING!
Regarding pardoned perps.....if you're pardoned, it should work the same way. Otherwise, you're still being punished by the state by not being allowed to vote.
"Pardoned" doesn't mean early parole or early release. It shouldn't only refer to incarceration.
-
IMO.....you serve your term...you should regain ALL your rights and privileges as a citizen...WHICH INCLUDES VOTING!
Regarding pardoned perps.....if you're pardoned, it should work the same way. Otherwise, you're still being punished by the state by not being allowed to vote.
"Pardoned" doesn't mean early parole or early release. It shouldn't only refer to incarceration.
Voting is a privilege.They lost that privilege when they committed the crime, plain and simple. They made the decision to commit a felony, which proves they are incapable of making good decisions for society. They know what crime they are committing, and if they do not know what crime they are committing that is bad luck. Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law. If they want their rights back they must go through a judge,Governor of a state or the POTUS.
-
Voting is a privilege.They lost that privilege when they committed the crime, plain and simple. They made the decision to commit a felony, which proves they are incapable of making good decisions for society. They know what crime they are committing, and if they do not know what crime they are committing that is bad luck. Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law. If they want their rights back they must go through a judge,Governor of a state or the POTUS.
So then, the whole "paid their debt to society" thing is just so much empty sloganeering.
-
So the whole "pay your debt to society" thing is just so much sloganeering.
Yep. And some of the felonies, are for possession of substances which most states have or will soon decriminalize, or legalize.
-
Yep. And some of the felonies, are for possession of substances which most states have or will soon decriminalize, or legalize.
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
-
So then, the whole "paid their debt to society" thing is just so much empty sloganeering.
A fistfight in a bar could be "overcharged" and result in a felony conviction. Lose voting right forever, over a fistfight in a bar?
-
A fistfight in a bar could be "overcharged" and result in a felony conviction. Lose voting right forever, over a fistfight in a bar?
The last time I checked fistfighting is considered an aggravated assault which is a felony depending on the state.The definitions of the different degrees of aggravated assault vary according to state laws. In general, however, first degree aggravated assault occurs when the act is committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought. This means there must be either an intentional attempt to commit serious bodily injury or intentional serious bodily injury must have been committed . Aggravated assault penalties depend on the degree and any injuries that may have occurred. Penalties also depend on the state where the assault took place. Aggravated assault charges can be treated as misdemeanors in some states, while other states will treat this charge as a felony. A conviction of an aggravated assault charge can have serious consequences on your life, especially if it is treated as a felony conviction. Many places of employment will not hire convicted felons, and if you already hold a professional license, you may not be able to get it renewed with a sustained felony conviction. A felon can also lose basic rights for a number of years, such as the right to vote, serve on a jury, or own a firearm.In states that have “three-strikes” laws, such as California, a felony aggravated assault conviction can also count as a “strike.” This means that if you already have two other felony convictions, or are convicted with other felonies in the same trial, a third strike for aggravated assault can put you in prison for life.Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
-
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
The 14th Amendment was part of the Reconstruction clauses.The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in the Congress.Section 1 of the amendment formally defines United States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor. Abridgment or denial of those civil rights by private persons is not addressed by this amendment; the Supreme Court held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations (though Congress can sometimes reach such discrimination via other parts of the Constitution).
-
The 14th Amendment was part of the Reconstruction clauses.The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in the Congress.Section 1 of the amendment formally defines United States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor. Abridgment or denial of those civil rights by private persons is not addressed by this amendment; the Supreme Court held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations (though Congress can sometimes reach such discrimination via other parts of the Constitution).
Stock dodge and weave.
Since the XIV Amendment addressed slaves, it's no longer applicable to anything in our justice system, and we may as well just run some White Out over it... is that your basic response?
-
Stock dodge and weave.
Since the XIV Amendment addressed slaves, it's no longer applicable to anything in our justice system, and we may as well just run some White Out over it... is that your basic response?
First. I would not take advice from that Obama/Libatard apologist. He is the last person on this planet I want to get my legal advice. Its like getting legal advice from Ron Kuby or the late William Kunzsler who are themselves liberal and would like to tear our system of justice for criminals. Are you a Obama apologist for criminals?
-
The last time I checked fistfighting is considered an aggravated assault which is a felony depending on the state.The definitions of the different degrees of aggravated assault vary according to state laws. In general, however, first degree aggravated assault occurs when the act is committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought. This means there must be either an intentional attempt to commit serious bodily injury or intentional serious bodily injury must have been committed . Aggravated assault penalties depend on the degree and any injuries that may have occurred. Penalties also depend on the state where the assault took place. Aggravated assault charges can be treated as misdemeanors in some states, while other states will treat this charge as a felony. A conviction of an aggravated assault charge can have serious consequences on your life, especially if it is treated as a felony conviction. Many places of employment will not hire convicted felons, and if you already hold a professional license, you may not be able to get it renewed with a sustained felony conviction. A felon can also lose basic rights for a number of years, such as the right to vote, serve on a jury, or own a firearm.In states that have “three-strikes” laws, such as California, a felony aggravated assault conviction can also count as a “strike.” This means that if you already have two other felony convictions, or are convicted with other felonies in the same trial, a third strike for aggravated assault can put you in prison for life.Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Yeah, I understand all of that. I'm familiar with California, too. We are just arguing "felony." Forget about 3rd strike which is an entirely different subject.
So one barfight and you never vote again, if the DA prosecuted it as a felony? Or one possession of marijuana and you never vote again, if the DA prosecuted it as a felony? (I recall that was the situation back in the 1970s when pot was still a really, really big deal)
-
Yeah, I understand all of that. I'm familiar with California, too. We are just arguing "felony." Forget about 3rd strike which is an entirely different subject.
So one barfight and you never vote again, if the DA prosecuted it as a felony? Or one possession of marijuana and you never vote again, if the DA prosecuted it as a felony? (I recall that was the situation back in the 1970s when pot was still a really, really big deal)
Those things are up to the District Attorney and police departments. They make the call.. With pot, it depends how much you have with you.That call is up to the police and District Attorney.As of January 1, 2011, possession of one ounce (28.5 gms) or less of marijuana is an infraction, punishable by a maximum $100 fine (plus fees) with no criminal record under Ca Health & Safety Code 11357b. With added fees, the cost can be as high as $485.
(Prior to 2011, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was a misdemeanor, but convictions under this section are expunged from the record after two years under Health and Safety Code Sections 11361.5 and 11361.7.)
Possession of larger amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to $500 and six months is jail under Health & Safety Code 11357c. Possession of hashish or concentrated cannabis is an optional misdemeanor or felony ("wobbler") under Health & Safety Code 11357a. However, under Prop. 36 first- and second- time possession-only offenders may demand a treatment program instead of jail. Upon successful completion of the program, their conviction is erased. Possession (and personal use cultivation) offenders can also avoid conviction by making a preguilty plea under Penal Code 1000, in which case their charges are dismissed upon successful completion of a diversion program.
Possession of one ounce or less in a vehicle while driving may also be charged under Vehicle Code 23222, which is treated identically to HSC 11357 b.
No arrest or imprisonment is allowed for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. However, police often get around this provision by charging minor offenders with felony intent to sell.
http://www.canorml.org/camjlaws.html
-
Those things are up to the District Attorney and police departments. They make the call.. With pot, it depends how much you have with you.That call is up to the police and District Attorney.As of January 1, 2011, possession of one ounce (28.5 gms) or less of marijuana is an infraction, punishable by a maximum $100 fine (plus fees) with no criminal record under Ca Health & Safety Code 11357b. With added fees, the cost can be as high as $485.
(Prior to 2011, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was a misdemeanor, but convictions under this section are expunged from the record after two years under Health and Safety Code Sections 11361.5 and 11361.7.)
Possession of larger amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to $500 and six months is jail under Health & Safety Code 11357c. Possession of hashish or concentrated cannabis is an optional misdemeanor or felony ("wobbler") under Health & Safety Code 11357a. However, under Prop. 36 first- and second- time possession-only offenders may demand a treatment program instead of jail. Upon successful completion of the program, their conviction is erased. Possession (and personal use cultivation) offenders can also avoid conviction by making a preguilty plea under Penal Code 1000, in which case their charges are dismissed upon successful completion of a diversion program.
Possession of one ounce or less in a vehicle while driving may also be charged under Vehicle Code 23222, which is treated identically to HSC 11357 b.
No arrest or imprisonment is allowed for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. However, police often get around this provision by charging minor offenders with felony intent to sell.
http://www.canorml.org/camjlaws.html
Marijuana is also illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Federal charges are typically brought only in large cases where commercial distribution is suspected (e.g., cultivation of several hundred plants).
-
First. I would not take advice from that Obama/Libatard apologist. He is the last person on this planet I want to get my legal advice. Its like getting legal advice from Ron Kuby or the late William Kunzsler who are themselves liberal and would like to tear our system of justice for criminals. Are you a Obama apologist for criminals?
Rather I should say, are you a liberal Obama pro-criminal apologist?
-
Time to move this one to the Boxing Ring.....
:whistle:
-
Time to move this one to the Boxing Ring.....
:whistle:
I am already finished with my argument. There is no use beating a dead horse. 11513
-
I have zero desire in child molesters continuing to breathe.
But no. You are doing what the left do. Setting limits. If you wish to do that, do it properly. Me - I'd only permit property owning tax payers to vote, but that's just me.
Naturally you feel that way, you're English. Which is why we separated ourselves from that country, remember? Taxation w/o representation.
Even if you don't own property, you pay taxes.
One voice, one vote.
-
So you are in favor of permanent loss of voting, for fistfights and marijuana possession if the DA overcharges with a felony?
(I expect some other states remain more severe about marijuane, etc.)
Redemption. I had a college friend that was in trouble with his parents, living with his grandma. Dropping classes. We were all risking getting busted for fighting, drinking, pot, etc. in the late 60s.
He decided to volunteer for the draft--two year commitment. Others took military in lieu of convictions for minor "crimes." My friend wound up servine for 37 years and retired as a 3 star general.
-
So you are in favor of permanent loss of voting, for fistfights and marijuana possession if the DA overcharges with a felony?
(I expect some other states remain more severe about marijuane, etc.)
Redemption. I had a college friend that was in trouble with his parents, living with his grandma. Dropping classes. We were all risking getting busted for fighting, drinking, pot, etc. in the late 60s.
He decided to volunteer for the draft--two year commitment. Others took military in lieu of convictions for minor "crimes." My friend wound up servine for 37 years and retired as a 3 star general.
I do not know if you read my response. That call would be left for the Police departments and ultimately the District Attorney. If he wants redemption or forgiveness I suggest he join a church or get it from his family. Again, there is no excuse to ignore the law.
-
Rather I should say, are you a liberal Obama pro-criminal apologist?
Um, no. Rand Paul supported this last year. And I don't think he's all that sweet on Obama or liberals.
http://wfpl.org/post/citing-racial-disparities-senator-rand-paul-favors-restoration-felon-voting-rights
-
Um, no. Rand Paul supported this last year. And I don't think he's all that sweet on Obama or liberals.
http://wfpl.org/post/citing-racial-disparities-senator-rand-paul-favors-restoration-felon-voting-rights
He is a Libertarian like his father. No Tea Party Republican would support this. If you are a social conservative Tea Party member you would not support marijuana.
-
He is a Libertarian like his father. No Tea Party Republican would support this. If they do, would you please link it.
Perhaps you are unaware that the TEA in Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already.' That is a libertarian position if i ever heard one. The MSM likes to portray the TP as a bunch of social conservatives, but that simply is not the case. There is some overlap, to be sure, but not all TP types are socons.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832)
-
He is a Libertarian like his father. No Tea Party Republican would support this. If they do, would you please link it.
He may not be tea party, but he's certainly not a liberal Obama pro-criminal apologist.
-
Perhaps you are unaware that the TEA in Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already.' That is a libertarian position if i ever heard one. The MSM likes to portray the TP as a bunch of social conservatives, but that simply is not the case. There is some overlap, to be sure, but not all TP types are socons.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832)
:beer:
-
He may not be tea party, but he's certainly not a liberal Obama pro-criminal apologist.
He sure acts like it especially coming from the mouth of Eric Holder who has proven he is a Obama apologist.
-
Perhaps you are unaware that the TEA in Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already.' That is a libertarian position if i ever heard one. The MSM likes to portray the TP as a bunch of social conservatives, but that simply is not the case. There is some overlap, to be sure, but not all TP types are socons.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832)
The social conservative Tea Party members don't support it. If you asked Michelle Bachmann this question she would say "No". She is a Tea Party Member. She is Queen of the Tea Party
-
He sure acts like it especially coming from the mouth of Eric Holder who has proven he is a Obama apologist.
Did you read the link? It's from last year. Rand Paul is NOT jumping on the Holder bandwagon. If anything, Holder is getting on Rand Paul's.
Which makes sense, seeing as Holder probably can't come up with his own ideas.
-
Did you read the link? It's from last year. Rand Paul is NOT jumping on the Holder bandwagon. If anything, Holder is getting on Rand Paul's.
Which makes sense, seeing as Holder probably can't come up with his own ideas.
These are all Libertarians. They did not support the PATRIOT Act. They are for open borders. They are for gay rights. They only represent a small fraction of the party.
-
First. I would not take advice from that Obama/Libatard apologist. He is the last person on this planet I want to get my legal advice. Its like getting legal advice from Ron Kuby or the late William Kunzsler who are themselves liberal and would like to tear our system of justice for criminals. Are you a Obama apologist for criminals?
Can we address something else here?
If you're going to cut and paste responses from the Internet, it's customary to credit the source. Otherwise it could be called plagiarism.
Let me know when I'm having a discussion with you, and not with Wikipedia. (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+14th+Amendment+was+part+of+the+Reconstruction+clauses.The+amendment+addresses+citizenship+rights+and+equal+protection+of+the+laws%2C+and+was+proposed+in+response+to+issues+related+to+former+slaves+following+the+American+Civil+War.+The+amendment+was+bitterly+contested%2C+particularly+by+Southern+states%2C+which+were+forced+to+ratify+it+in+order+for+them+to+regain+representation+in+the+Congress&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS533US533&oq=The+14th+Amendment+was+part+of+the+Reconstruction+clauses.The+amendment+addresses+citizenship+rights+and+equal+protection+of+the+laws%2C+and+was+proposed+in+response+to+issues+related+to+former+slaves+following+the+American+Civil+War.+The+amendment+was+bitterly+contested%2C+particularly+by+Southern+states%2C+which+were+forced+to+ratify+it+in+order+for+them+to+regain+representation+in+the+Congress&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.1138j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8)
-
He is a Libertarian like his father. No Tea Party Republican would support this. If you are a social conservative Tea Party member you would not support marijuana.
Thanks for clearing that up....here I thought I was a Republican. LOL!
I'm for giving ex-felons that serve their time full voting rights.
I'm for legalization of marijuana. Screw decriminalization. If everyone smoked, Jews would be dating Palestinians.
-
He is a Libertarian like his father. No Tea Party Republican would support this. If you are a social conservative Tea Party member you would not support marijuana.
Wrong on both counts. I support the tea party and decriminalizing marijuana.
I am for demilitarizing the police, am pro-life, and for eliminating the Federal reserve, and restoring voting rights once the debt has been paid.
People are free to have different opinions.
-
The last time I checked fistfighting is considered an aggravated assault which is a felony depending on the state.The definitions of the different degrees of aggravated assault vary according to state laws. In general, however, first degree aggravated assault occurs when the act is committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought. This means there must be either an intentional attempt to commit serious bodily injury or intentional serious bodily injury must have been committed . Aggravated assault penalties depend on the degree and any injuries that may have occurred. Penalties also depend on the state where the assault took place. Aggravated assault charges can be treated as misdemeanors in some states, while other states will treat this charge as a felony. A conviction of an aggravated assault charge can have serious consequences on your life, especially if it is treated as a felony conviction. Many places of employment will not hire convicted felons, and if you already hold a professional license, you may not be able to get it renewed with a sustained felony conviction. A felon can also lose basic rights for a number of years, such as the right to vote, serve on a jury, or own a firearm.In states that have “three-strikes” laws, such as California, a felony aggravated assault conviction can also count as a “strike.” This means that if you already have two other felony convictions, or are convicted with other felonies in the same trial, a third strike for aggravated assault can put you in prison for life.Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Good Lord man, do you post ANYTHING that's not cut and paste from online sources?
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/aggravated_assault.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Cornelius.Tacitus.Quote.40B6
-
Perhaps you are unaware that the TEA in Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already.' That is a libertarian position if i ever heard one. The MSM likes to portray the TP as a bunch of social conservatives, but that simply is not the case. There is some overlap, to be sure, but not all TP types are socons.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832)
:beer:
-
Thanks for clearing that up....here I thought I was a Republican. LOL!
I'm for giving ex-felons that serve their time full voting rights.
I'm for legalization of marijuana. Screw decriminalization. If everyone smoked, Jews would be dating Palestinians.
Social conservatives have long been trying to solipsize conservatism.
If you're not on the right side of the social issues of the day, you're not conservative, YET, they are willing to engage every bit of governmental force available to them to set their social agenda in place, and to ME, you cannot be a unrepentant grow-the-government statist and brand yourself a conservative.
The two are completely incompatible.
When I see social conservatives, I basically see proponents of religious statism, with progressives (their counterparts) pushing secular statism on to the rest of us.
The social conservative movement spends most of their time trying to stop people from doing things they want to do (same-sex marriage), while progressives spend their time trying to force others to do things they don't want to do (baking cakes for same-sex weddings), and frankly, I wish that they'd both leave the rest of us alone and go duke it out somewhere on a deserted island.
Some of us want to discuss things like the impending financial crash, instead of arguing about who's buggering who.
Me?
You can imagine me sitting at home, doing bong hits with my same-sex married couple neighbors and cheering as we all watch the US level some Muslim terrorist-harboring shithole of a nation into whatever period of time it was that went on before the Bronze age on my nice, new Samsung 70" LED TV.
Yes... a libertarian.
Better yet, a Classical Liberal.
-
Wrong on both counts. I support the tea party and decriminalizing marijuana.
I am for demilitarizing the police, am pro-life, and for eliminating the Federal reserve, and restoring voting rights once the debt has been paid.
People are free to have different opinions.
And none of the above make you a liberal!
We need to stop trying to purify the party.
-
You tell 'em, Luis! :beer:
-
And none of the above make you a liberal!
We need to stop trying to purify the party.
I'm just a person that wants to be left alone. Period.
Given today's Democrat Party, the GOP is the only place to go. Been 'here' since Reagan.
-
Good Lord man, do you post ANYTHING that's not cut and paste from online sources?
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/aggravated_assault.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Cornelius.Tacitus.Quote.40B6
Thanks for the advice and reminding me. :tongue2:
-
Can we address something else here?
If you're going to cut and paste responses from the Internet, it's customary to credit the source. Otherwise it could be called plagiarism.
I am. I just forgot to quote. Shit happens
-
Can we address something else here?
If you're going to cut and paste responses from the Internet, it's customary to credit the source. Otherwise it could be called plagiarism.
Let me know when I'm having a discussion with you, and not with Wikipedia. (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+14th+Amendment+was+part+of+the+Reconstruction+clauses.The+amendment+addresses+citizenship+rights+and+equal+protection+of+the+laws%2C+and+was+proposed+in+response+to+issues+related+to+former+slaves+following+the+American+Civil+War.+The+amendment+was+bitterly+contested%2C+particularly+by+Southern+states%2C+which+were+forced+to+ratify+it+in+order+for+them+to+regain+representation+in+the+Congress&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS533US533&oq=The+14th+Amendment+was+part+of+the+Reconstruction+clauses.The+amendment+addresses+citizenship+rights+and+equal+protection+of+the+laws%2C+and+was+proposed+in+response+to+issues+related+to+former+slaves+following+the+American+Civil+War.+The+amendment+was+bitterly+contested%2C+particularly+by+Southern+states%2C+which+were+forced+to+ratify+it+in+order+for+them+to+regain+representation+in+the+Congress&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.1138j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2rmnx2t.png)
Your Hero-I cut and Pasted this for you.
-
The social conservative Tea Party members don't support it. If you asked Michelle Bachmann this question she would say "No". She is a Tea Party Member. She is Queen of the Tea Party
She may be the self-appointed Queen of the Tea Party among the so-cons but she ain't butt sweat off a mule to me. She's another one of the glommers on that ruined a good thing.
-
Yeah, but at least she don't look like no Ron Kuby. :smokin:
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2rmnx2t.png)
Your Hero-I cut and Pasted this for you.
Another cut and paste responses from you.
Why am I not surprised?