Quote :

"That's fine, but I would still assert that there is more to being a good sheriff than simply being "not corrupt," though the being latter certainly goes a long ways towards being the former."

I agree.

Quote :

"If he were the only one running, someone would figure it out."

One would only hope, especially before any type of deadline to get on the ballot.

Quote :

"That's fine for you. Don't vote for them. But don't also completely prevent them from being able to run."

It's not a matter of not voting for them. Sheriff, along with quite a few other positions, aren't contended by two parties. It's very possible to be in a situation where you have no option except one.

Quote :

"you also did a damned good job of ignoring the rest of what I said"

Fair enough.

Quote :

"A corrupt government, by definition, cannot keep itself in check. And no founding document could ever hope to do so. There's a great quote out there that speaks to this topic: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.""

A corrupt government can't also be kept in check by the people. The reason I said you're naive is that you actually believe that we could revolt against the government in the year 2010. It's not the 1700s, where the people are capable of obtaining the same weaponry as the military and being anywhere near as organized as our military. I'm sorry. But there's no hope of revolt.

I can site quite a few examples where there's no hope of revolt in modern times. The people of North Korea can't revolt. You think us having guns really makes a difference? We're to the point where our government is infinitely more advanced than anything than anything we can get our hands on.

Quote :

"And I find it equally funny how optimistic you are of government while being equally pessimistic about society."

You're right. I am pessimistic about society. What reason do I have to optimistic about society? As long as greed and power are still at the center of our society, I will continue to be pessimistic about our society. The thing is, I'm just less pessimistic about out government.

Quote :

"Yep. That's why the second option of revolt is the other half of the check."

Addressed above.

Quote :

"And I don't think you get mine. That something doesn't affect you is not a good reason to simply ignore it. If something is wrong, then it's wrong, whether it affects you or not. Such selfishness is extremely abhorrent."

You're right, I didn't get yours. What I meant was that homosexual marriage doesn't affect anyone. Yes, I said "me." Again, it was my ambiguity showing again, and I'm sorry for that.

Quote :

"Actually, yes, it is."

I agree to disagree.

Quote :

"You can't really say that without defending it. All of those statements make a damned good point, even if doing so under the surface. "

It wasn't a sarcastic response. I really meant that I agree. I don't agree with any underlining point you were trying to make. I don't think a felon should be allowed to protect people via being a sheriff, they shouldn't be an elected representative of the people, and they shouldn't have a public servant job. I don't trust them in those positions. If I'm a hiring manager, I'll still consider their application, but it will definitely be a case-by-case basis.

My concern is with giving a felon a seat of power.

10/15/2010 7:19:51 PM

Quote :

"It's not a matter of not voting for them. Sheriff, along with quite a few other positions, aren't contended by two parties. It's very possible to be in a situation where you have no option except one."

Sounds like a problem with our voting laws, where the people can't choose "None of the above".

Quote :

"The reason I said you're naive is that you actually believe that we could revolt against the government in the year 2010. It's not the 1700s, where the people are capable of obtaining the same weaponry as the military and being anywhere near as organized as our military. I'm sorry. But there's no hope of revolt. "

Oddly enough we're in this position in part because people like you think that broad overreaching laws to correct minor problems are a good idea.

Quote :

"The thing is, I'm just less pessimistic about out government. "

Yet you would grant the government the ability to arbitrarily deny citizens their rights instead of trusting the citizens to not vote for a known felon.

Quote :

"My concern is with giving a felon a seat of power."

My concern is with giving people with a seat of power the ability to define who can challenge that power. I can envision scenarios where a felon would be preferable to someone already in power, can't you?

10/15/2010 8:00:52 PM

Quote :

"It's not a matter of not voting for them. Sheriff, along with quite a few other positions, aren't contended by two parties."

You keep coming back to this, and I keep thrashing it. So stop it, dude. I think you would agree that the felony would be discovered and reported if there were another candidate, so would you be OK if the felon could run in that instance, at least? I ask because you are getting hung up on the situation where a sheriff runs unopposed, but I don't think that happens enough to really be a problem. I think in the more general situation, it is 100% wrong to deny someone the ability to run for an office based simply on a felony conviction. And I am willing to allow that possibility in a rare, unopposed election in order to allow it the more common case.

Quote :

"I'm sorry. But there's no hope of revolt."

You may be right, and at the risk of going on a tangent, that's one of the major reasons that I support unrestricted 2nd amendment rights. I firmly believe the founding fathers anticipated advancement of weapons technology, and that is why they, in my opinion, gave the people a blanket right to weaponry of all type.

However, more to the topic, revolt is not always necessary for change or controlling a corrupt gov't. My point was that the ultimate check is two-pronged: voting and revolution. If the gov't were abjectly corrupt, I would expect that the people would vote them out. Even with the statement that those in power tend to keep it, I think that abject corruption would negate that. And, in the case where it irrevocably couldn't, I think that there would be so large a number of people in rebellion that a revolution would ultimately occur, thus restoring a more palatable gov't. We saw this in Russia not 20 years ago, and one could certainly say that that government had far more advanced weaponry than the populace. Revolution does not always require weaponry.

Quote :

"The people of North Korea can't revolt."

They most certainly can. Maybe not at this immediate moment, but given the right circumstances, they can, and, I believe, will. One of the ways that a regime can lessen the ability of dissidence is to prevent or restrict speech and assemblage. That would explain the importance and existence of the 1st Amendment. Even then, sheer numbers can and will lead to revolt, as seen in Russia.

Quote :

"What I meant was that homosexual marriage doesn't affect anyone."

Really? It most certainly affects homosexuals. I think maybe you mean that it doesn't affect people as much as other more pressing issues do. And that may be true, but I think it is equally callous and heartless as the previous statement to which I had responded.

Quote :

"I agree to disagree."

Bit of a cop-out, but ok. I really don't think the way to address one problem is to compound it with another. That just makes you have to address the bigger problem with another even worse solution. It snowballs.

Quote :

"I don't trust them in those positions."

I'm glad that you don't trust them, and that is your right to believe so. But don't you think it is terrible to deny them the possibility of self-actualization simply because you don't trust them? Don't you think it is wrong to deny someone the ability to do something he really wants to simply because you don't trust him, even if he is really a reformed person and would do a great job? I absolutely think that is abhorrent and disgusting. And while, yes, some people will abuse it, I think that those situations are few and far between and would be quickly rectified.

Let's look at your situation of the unopposed candidate in a different light. Let's say that he is corrupt. Don't you think the people of that town would recognize it pretty quickly, given its small size? And don't you think they would then take legal action upon the procurement of evidence to that fact? We're talking about unopposed, initial candidacy here. Meaning the felon doesn't have an established base of power. Thus, legal action should be simple and effective, even quick. If he doesn't act corruptly enough to produce enough evidence for his dismissal, then has there really been enough of a wrong to have worried about in the first place? Certainly by the time of the next election, another candidate will have arisen, and the corrupt man will be deposed. The citizens live through a few years of slight corruption and emerge no worse for the wear.

Isn't this situation thus resolved palatably either way? And, more importantly, doesn't this still allow the reformed man to achieves his desires and dreams at the same time? I believe so.

10/15/2010 9:00:41 PM

This would be like letting someone apply to be a truck driver who cant get a drivers license.

If you can not legally posses a firearm you can not be a cop or supervise cops.


This question makes me curious, do any legislators state or national have felony convictions?

10/15/2010 9:42:40 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like a problem with our voting laws, where the people can't choose "None of the above"."

I agree. But this thread isn't about that.

Quote :

"Oddly enough we're in this position in part because people like you think that broad overreaching laws to correct minor problems are a good idea."

I would hardly consider allowing felons to be sheriff to be a "minor problem."

I did state that I would be in favor of allowing a program for felons to re-establish their rights. Kentucky has a system like that for felons, where they can regain the right to vote.

Quote :

"Yet you would grant the government the ability to arbitrarily deny citizens their rights instead of trusting the citizens to not vote for a known felon."

I trust citizens to not vote for a known felon. Not the issue. The issue is when there is no option except for a known felon.

Quote :

"My concern is with giving people with a seat of power the ability to define who can challenge that power."

I could have sworn that our founding fathers were in such a seat to define who can challenge for certain seats of power. After all, not anyone can be the President.

Quote :

"I can envision scenarios where a felon would be preferable to someone already in power, can't you?"

Not really, no.

Quote :

"You keep coming back to this, and I keep thrashing it. So stop it, dude."

You're not thrashing, you're avoiding.

Quote :

"I think you would agree that the felony would be discovered and reported if there were another candidate, so would you be OK if the felon could run in that instance, at least?"

I suppose so.

Quote :

"but I don't think that happens enough to really be a problem."

It only needs to happen once for it to be a problem. Unlike you and other people, I'm try to avoid reaction policies when necessary. I would rather policies to take in account unintended circumstances. It's irresponsible to say "it doesn't happen enough to be a problem." The fact is, it can happen. So why allow it?

Quote :

"And I am willing to allow that possibility in a rare, unopposed election in order to allow it the more common case."

That's where we differ.

You may think that I'm going to leave the whole revolt response alone because I can't address it. I can, but I feel it will end up throwing this thread into a whole direction.

Quote :

"Really? It most certainly affects homosexuals."

You knew damn well what I meant. I meant that allowing homosexual marriage won't negatively impact anyone. Banning homosexual marriage negatively impacts homosexuals.

Quote :

"I think maybe you mean that it doesn't affect people as much as other more pressing issues do."

No. That's what I meant. What I meant was that banning or allowing homosexual marriage only affects the people in question, homosexuals. Banning or allowing felons to serve as sheriff affects more than just felons, but the general populace as well. Herein lies the difference between the two examples.

Quote :

" But don't you think it is terrible to deny them the possibility of self-actualization simply because you don't trust them? Don't you think it is wrong to deny someone the ability to do something he really wants to simply because you don't trust him, even if he is really a reformed person and would do a great job?"

See. Here's the difference between you and me. You think that everyone can be reformed. Never mind the fact that we have sociopaths who are so good at manipulation they never get caught for their deceitful acts.

I don't think everyone can be reformed. I don't think a 25 year prison sentence will necessarily reform people. Our prisons don't reform, they punish. Some people might come out having learned their lesson, while others may go on to continue doing what they did to end up in there. I'm not worried about murderers, rapists, or even drug dealers or prostitutes running for sheriff. They don't stand a chance one way or the other. I'm more worried about white collar criminals. People who made a living out of being manipulative, people who are addicted to greed, money and doing whatever it takes to keep their power. I don't think those people can truly be reformed.

Quote :

"If he doesn't act corruptly enough to produce enough evidence for his dismissal, then has there really been enough of a wrong to have worried about in the first place? Certainly by the time of the next election, another candidate will have arisen, and the corrupt man will be deposed. The citizens live through a few years of slight corruption and emerge no worse for the wear."

I'm not going to challenge the preceding case of providing enough evidence where he can be convicted or gotten rid of. It's a good point.

But your view on simply being "ok" with allowing any wrong only backs up my feelings about humanity. We should do our best to not allow any wrong doing by anyone in the government.

You can only hope that another candidate will arise, and you can only hope that the sheriff doesn't use intimidation or fabricating evidence to see his opponent "vanish."

Citizens shouldn't have to live through a day of corruption.

10/15/2010 9:45:32 PM

fuck yeah, they have felony convictions.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_senators_and_congressmen_are_convicted_felons

10/15/2010 9:47:25 PM

gonna double post, so suck it!

Quote :

"I agree. But this thread isn't about that."

Cop-out. If his claim is that fixing other laws will fix the issue this amendment tries to address, then it very much is relevant to say that we should fix other laws first.

Quote :

"After all, not anyone can be the President."

I think we can agree that the position of President is of far greater importance than the position of town sheriff. And, yet, a felon can still run for President...

Quote :

"You're not thrashing, you're avoiding."

No, really, I've thrashed it. You are the one avoiding the issue.

Quote :

"It only needs to happen once for it to be a problem."

This is where we massively disagree. There are bad situations that can arise that don't necessitate the invocation of a law. Let's go to the absurd and point out that I could lose control of my car and it lurch into a school and kill 50 kids at once. It could happen once, and has happened at least once (maybe not with 50 kids being killed, but you get the point). Does that mean we should outlaw all cars? Or, should we just outlaw cars within a half a mile of a school? Likewise, my TV might fall off the wall and kill my niece. Thus, we should outlaw all TVs, right? After all, it can happen, right?

Quote :

"I would rather policies to take in account unintended circumstances."

And yet you fully ignore the unintended consequence of denying a truly reformed man the right to self-actualization in the name of preventing the odd-case where a felon runs unopposed. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that?

Quote :

"You knew damn well what I meant. I meant that allowing homosexual marriage won't negatively impact anyone. Banning homosexual marriage negatively impacts homosexuals."

Actually, from what I was reading, I thought you were saying the issue affects no one. Makes sense now.

Quote :

"Banning or allowing felons to serve as sheriff affects more than just felons, but the general populace as well."

True, but without an absolute proof that felons will be corrupt, you are attacking a boogeyman. A lot of this comes down to your statement that you "don't trust felons," which is fine. Don't trust them, but don't also deny them the right to achieve their own dreams or better themselves or serve their community in whatever way they see fit. There is a level of irrationality in your statement of "I don't trust felons" that even you would admit to, as you would certainly agree that one can't prove a felon will be corrupt.

Time for another absurd example, but let's say I don't trust black people. It, too, is irrational, though certainly far more so than your lack of trust for felons. let's assume that there isn't a law which disallows such discrimination and let's ignore the massive difference in irrationality between the two. You would still say that my hypothetical lack of trust in black people shouldn't be a valid reason to prevent a black man from running for sheriff, and you would be absolutely right.

Now, back to reality. Given that there is a lack of rationality in your distrust of felons, shouldn't it be equally bad to disqualify them from being sheriff? From a moral perspective, shouldn't we generally give people the chance at self-actualization? And if we are going to deny them that chance, shouldn't it be based on something absolutely concrete and rational? From a legal perspective in the US, we don't convict if there is a reasonable doubt (not directly applicable to here, I know, but here me out [no sales meme]). Well, there is reasonable doubt in your claim that felons can't be trusted. And, as a result, shouldn't we give someone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise?

Quote :

"I don't think everyone can be reformed."

That's fine, but should we deny the ability to be sheriff to an actual reformed man in the name of preventing a hypothetical unreformed man from running uncontested in a one-off occurrence? I say "no".

Quote :

"I don't think those people can truly be reformed."

And I don't think they a) represent every last felon out there, or b) would be likely to run for sheriff in the first place, much less c) that that they would do so uncontested.

Quote :

"We should do our best to not allow any wrong doing by anyone in the government."

Yes, we should do our best, but that should not entail cutting people off from self-actualization without damned good cause and, more importantly, damned strong proof.

Quote :

"Citizens shouldn't have to live through a day of corruption."

True, but a reformed man shouldn't be denied self-actualization, either.

Quote :

"You can only hope that another candidate will arise, and you can only hope that the sheriff doesn't use intimidation or fabricating evidence to see his opponent "vanish.""

See, here's what I don't get. How does a guy who is not currently sheriff accomplish such a thing, contested or not? How does he do so? He doesn't have the power of the law at his fingertips How does he fabricate evidence? Wouldn't existing policemen or lawyers notice this and bring him to justice? If the existing system is already so hopelessly corrupt as to not care, then what are you truly accomplishing by preventing the felon from running in the first place? The people are already under corruption at this point, and the amendment accomplishes nothing. Your nightmare scenario requires such a preponderance of bad-shit to already be in place that it really doesn't help anything! It changes nothing! It's the equivalent of shutting the windows on the Titanic after it has broken in two, thinking that will magically save the ship.

If we look at this differently, we say well, people didn't know he was corrupt when he first ran, and then all hell broke loose. Well, I'd say that even in this case, he will be voted out, even if he fabricates evidence. If he makes shit up, surely the DA will notice. Surely the lawyers involved will notice this and call him out, at which point he goes to jail and the problem is solved. Nevermind that this can only happen in small-town bumfuck-nowhere, and it requires that there only be one lawman in the town and the last one just died of a heart-attack two days before the filing deadline. It's so fucking improbable as to not matter. It, again, requires such a preponderance of bad luck and circumstance as to be unbelievable, and the resolution is so ultimately simple and even quick that it doesn't matter if it does occur. Sheriff starts acting a fool, local lawyer notices it and notifies the state, who then either arrests the sheriff or at least issues an injunction to remove his ability to act. Bam, problem solved!

10/15/2010 10:30:05 PM

^ Yeah. I think Stevens from Alaska is the latest and there was one Senator from the 70s who won the election while in jail.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Senators and Representatives from serving if they are felons. But, state Constitutions/laws can prohibit state senators and representatives, or other public servants from holding office.

10/15/2010 10:31:32 PM

Quote :

"Cop-out. If his claim is that fixing other laws will fix the issue this amendment tries to address, then it very much is relevant to say that we should fix other laws first."

It's not a copout. I fucking agreed with him. I simply said that it wasn't within the scope of the thread. I also brought up re-categorizing some drug charges and prostitution as being misdemeanors, but I didn't go into further detail, simply because it would be going off on a tangent.

Quote :

"I think we can agree that the position of President is of far greater importance than the position of town sheriff. And, yet, a felon can still run for President..."

Because the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit it. If there was an amendment that did, I would agree with the amendment.

Quote :

"There are bad situations that can arise that don't necessitate the invocation of a law. Let's go to the absurd and point out that I could lose control of my car and it lurch into a school and kill 50 kids at once."

We punish you for losing control of your car and being negligible. As a result, you can't be sheriff. Sorry bro.

Quote :

"Does that mean we should outlaw all cars?"

Nope. We punish the people who can't be responsible. *Gasp* That's what I'm proposing with this. They broke the fucking law. Losing rights and privileges comes with that.

Quote :

"Likewise, my TV might fall off the wall and kill my niece. Thus, we should outlaw all TVs, right? After all, it can happen, right?"

We chalk it up to bad luck, unless we can hold you responsible.

I'm simply holding people responsible for their past actions. You want to give them a pass.

In order for society to function properly, we rely on each member of society to follow the laws and to act respectfully to each other. When they fail to do that, that trust is broken.

Quote :

"And yet you fully ignore the unintended consequence of denying a truly reformed man the right to self-actualization in the name of preventing the odd-case where a felon runs unopposed. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that?"

Nope. How do we really know that the man is "truly" reformed, if there such a thing?

Quote :

"True, but without an absolute proof that felons will be corrupt, you are attacking a boogeyman."

Nope. They've already been shown to break the law in the past. That's why it's hard for felons to get jobs and why they are treated differently from non-felons. There's a lot of things people wouldn't trust a felon to do, on the simple basis that we don't trust them.

Quote :

"Don't trust them, but don't also deny them the right to achieve their own dreams or better themselves or serve their community in whatever way they see fit."

Being sheriff isn't a right.

Quote :

"Time for another absurd example, but let's say I don't trust black people. It, too, is irrational, though certainly far more so than your lack of trust for felons. let's assume that there isn't a law which disallows such discrimination and let's ignore the massive difference in irrationality between the two."

So, you're taking two examples that are pretty different and telling me to ignore those differences because you can't find a more applicable example? Sorry. It doesn't work like that.

Quote :

"You would still say that my hypothetical lack of trust in black people shouldn't be a valid reason to prevent a black man from running for sheriff, and you would be absolutely right."

But you have no reason to not trust a black person outside of the fact that he's black. A felon, by definition, broke the law. A sheriff, by definition, upholds the law. Do you see the conflict? Do you see how it's irrational to not trust a black man, but it's rational to not trust a felon in a position of power where he's expected to uphold the law, especially when you consider the dismal job our prisons do at reforming people.

I would trust Martha Stewart to make me some brownies, but that bitch isn't come close to my money.

Quote :

"Given that there is a lack of rationality in your distrust of felons, shouldn't it be equally bad to disqualify them from being sheriff?"

No, because there is no lack of rationality.

Quote :

"From a moral perspective, shouldn't we generally give people the chance at self-actualization?"

Are you really preaching morality to me? Didn't you just say "The citizens live through a few years of slight corruption and emerge no worse for the wear?" You're willing to set aside the happiness and well-being of the majority to satisfy a few people. THAT'S immoral to me.

Quote :

"That's fine, but should we deny the ability to be sheriff to an actual reformed man in the name of preventing a hypothetical unreformed man from running uncontested in a one-off occurrence? I say "no"."

Isn't your example of an "actual reformed man" just as hypothetical as my "hypothetical unreformed man?" What's the test for determining whether a man is truly reformed?

It's like alcoholism to me. Sure, they may be able to go 20 years without a drink, but the risk and chance of them falling off the wagon is still there.

Quote :

"And I don't think they a) represent every last felon out there, or b) would be likely to run for sheriff in the first place, much less c) that that they would do so uncontested."

a) If you can't do the crime, don't do the time, b) I think it's likely for a white collar felon to run for sheriff, and given their sociopathic nature, who really even knows if their "truly reformed" c) what makes you say that, since it is a position that has been run uncontested in the past?

Quote :

"Yes, we should do our best, but that should not entail cutting people off from self-actualization without damned good cause and, more importantly, damned strong proof."

I think keeping felons from being sheriff is a good cause and their criminal record is strong proof.

Quote :

"True, but a reformed man shouldn't be denied self-actualization, either."

There's more damage done by permitting people to be exposed to corruption than by denying one man his chance at being sheriff.

Quote :

"How does a guy who is not currently sheriff accomplish such a thing, contested or not?"

I'm going based off the hypothetical situation of a corrupt sheriff in power. You said that if there was a corrupt politician that he would be voted out of office. I'm going based off of that situation.

Quote :

"He doesn't have the power of the law at his fingertips How does he fabricate evidence? Wouldn't existing policemen or lawyers notice this and bring him to justice?"

It's amazing what money and promotions can accomplish and cover up.

Quote :

"If the existing system is already so hopelessly corrupt as to not care, then what are you truly accomplishing by preventing the felon from running in the first place?"

Not if the felon made the system corrupt.

Quote :

" Well, I'd say that even in this case, he will be voted out, even if he fabricates evidence."

If he fabricates evidence, then how will his opponent have a chance at winning?

Quote :

"If he makes shit up, surely the DA will notice."

Yeah, if he's bad at it.

Quote :

"Nevermind that this can only happen in small-town bumfuck-nowhere"

Population and location are irrelevant. I called you out on this bullshit in the past. Stop it.

Quote :

"It's so fucking improbable as to not matter."

I disagree. But I'm sure people thought that about Watergate.

Quote :

"Sheriff starts acting a fool, local lawyer notices it and notifies the state, who then either arrests the sheriff or at least issues an injunction to remove his ability to act. Bam, problem solved!"

This is assuming that he is caught fabricating evidence.

10/15/2010 11:04:14 PM

Quote :

"We punish you for losing control of your car and being negligible."

yes, but we don't outlaw cars. why? because the probability of you losing control is far less than the probability of you being responsible. More aptly, your ability to move around freely with convenience is more important than the improbability of your car lurching into a school and killing 50 kids.

Quote :

"Nope. We punish the people who can't be responsible. *Gasp* That's what I'm proposing with this. They broke the fucking law."

So, they broke the law and that means they can never be responsible again. Really?

Quote :

"I'm simply holding people responsible for their past actions. You want to give them a pass."

Not at all. I gave them no pass. They went to prison. They served their probation. They paid their fines. I keep my eye on them, but I don't say they can't piss in their house without supervision...

Quote :

"Nope. How do we really know that the man is "truly" reformed, if there such a thing?"

Well, again, in that case, keep him locked up forever. Put him to death. Be done with it!

Quote :

"There's a lot of things people wouldn't trust a felon to do, on the simple basis that we don't trust them."

Yep, but we generally do so on our own account, NOT at the requirement of a law. There is a massive difference. yes, there are things that the law takes away, and I even have trouble with some of those! I fully give you the right to say "I don't trust you." I DON'T think we should codify that distrust forever.

Quote :

"Being sheriff isn't a right."

Self-actualization is, and should be. And if being sheriff is part of that for person X, then the pursuit of it should be denied to him.

Quote :

"So, you're taking two examples that are pretty different and telling me to ignore those differences because you can't find a more applicable example? Sorry. It doesn't work like that."

No, I'm saying look at the similarities of the situation, because it is important and illustrates a point. Address the similarities and the actual point. Don't cop-out on what I already admitted was less-than-stellar. It gets to point quite fucking well. And you know it. And that's why you won't discuss it.

Quote :

"But you have no reason to not trust a black person outside of the fact that he's black. A felon, by definition, broke the law"

Right. You agree that the lack of trust in a black person is irrational. I posit that an abject lack of trust in all felons is equally irrational. I defy you to prove that no felon can be trusted ever again.

Quote :

"Do you see how it's irrational to not trust a black man, but it's rational to not trust a felon in a position of power where he's expected to uphold the law, especially when you consider the dismal job our prisons do at reforming people."

Sure. But, would I vote for a felon? In general, no. I'm not positing that all felons should be sheriffs or congressmen. Rather, I am positing they should be able to run. Massive difference. Vital difference.

Quote :

"No, because there is no lack of rationality."

And so is saying no felons are trustworthy.

Quote :

"You're willing to set aside the happiness and well-being of the majority to satisfy a few people. THAT'S immoral to me."

False. I'm willing to RISK that in an abjectly improbable scenario to preserve the rights and dignity of another man. You, however, are saying that all felons are terrible people who can't be trusted to take out the trash, effectively.

Quote :

"It's like alcoholism to me. Sure, they may be able to go 20 years without a drink, but the risk and chance of them falling off the wagon is still there."

Good example. Do we thus pass an amendment that says that no former alcoholic can ever buy a beer again? Of course not.

Quote :

"Isn't your example of an "actual reformed man" just as hypothetical as my "hypothetical unreformed man?" What's the test for determining whether a man is truly reformed?"

I don't know. And based on that, I don't curtail his right to self-actualization. You do.

Quote :

"I think it's likely for a white collar felon to run for sheriff, and given their sociopathic nature, who really even knows if their "truly reformed""

possibly, but do you really think the average white-collar criminal is the maniacal evil sociopath that you described? I think not...

Quote :

"what makes you say that, since it is a position that has been run uncontested in the past?"

Because it requires an extreme convergence of events for it to happen and for the felon to be able to capitalize on it, that's why. Sure, people run uncontested for sheriff. Very few do so, except in small towns. And in small towns, everyone knows everyone, so everyone knows if the guy running is a felon.

Quote :

"I think keeping felons from being sheriff is a good cause and their criminal record is strong proof."

Really, so you would convict a man on no more evidence than that he was a prior felon? Really? Really...

Quote :

"There's more damage done by permitting people to be exposed to corruption than by denying one man his chance at being sheriff."

How do you figure, when the exposure to corruption requires other higher levels or corruption to have already existed?

Quote :

"Not if the felon made the system corrupt."

Really? The felon bought every lawyer in the county? He bought every judge in the county? He bought every voter in the county? On a small-town sheriff's salary? Don't you see just how improbable this scenario is? And if he has major money connections, why run for sheriff in a small town in bum-fuck nowhere? Why not just resume his life of crime in a far more safe place?

Quote :

"If he fabricates evidence, then how will his opponent have a chance at winning?"

That first requires him to do so without being caught. Now, we have a felon with deep pockets, buying every one off in town, and he's so smart that he's not gonna be caught... But he got caught the first time, thus the reason he's a felon? Wait, what?

Quote :

"Population and location are irrelevant. I called you out on this bullshit in the past. Stop it."

Absolutely not. The sheriff of Wake County isn't going to run uncontested! You may have "called me out," but I promptly thrashed that call. It absolutely requires a small-town, because any other place has more than one candidate!

Quote :

"This is assuming that he is caught fabricating evidence."

Again, he's such a criminal mastermind that he got caught the first time and got a felony. Really?



seriously, address the fact that this scenario involves such an insanely improbably convergence of things as to be nigh on impossible! It requires that the last sheriff have died unexpectedly shortly before the filing deadline. It requires the felon to be in the right town at the right time. It requires that the locals know absolutely nothing about thus guy, yet still vote him in as sheriff. It then requires him later to buy off all the lawyers and judges in town, on a small-town sheriff's salary. Or, it requires him to have a shit-ton of money, which then requires the felon to forsake the use of that money in a larger area in order to... be a small-town sheriff?
In almost all scenarios, the situation is resolved without the felon getting elected by the simple existence of another candidate! The only scenario where we can't count on this is the absurdly impossible small-town scenario. And yet you want to pass a broad amendment to prevent this absurdly impossible scenario which ends up hurting the highly more likely reformed-felon-wanting-to-be-sheriff scenario which, as unlikely as it is, is infinitely more probable than the evil-small-town-sheriff one.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 11:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 11:33:10 PM

Quote :

"I would hardly consider allowing felons to be sheriff to be a "minor problem.""

I would. In fact I would go so far as to say I'd bet that in the last 50 years, less than 10 sheriffs in all the US were:

1) Prior Felons
2) Ran Uncontested for Sheriff
3) Once in office, proceeded to engage in corruption

That to my mind is a minor problem, and one that is better solved through other means.

Quote :

"The issue is when there is no option except for a known felon. "

Then the solution is to give them an option, not to remove options.

Quote :

"Not really, no."

If Blagojevich decided to run for Sheriff, you don't think you might be better off electing the guy that got busted for selling pot or cock fighting?

Quote :

"Unlike you and other people, I'm try to avoid reaction policies when necessary."

Yet isn't this amendment precisely a reactionary policy?

10/16/2010 12:32:00 AM

Obama and crew are pussies if they can't pop joe arpaio for something.

10/16/2010 12:38:00 AM

Quote :

"yes, but we don't outlaw cars. why?"

We value personal responsibility.

Quote :

"So, they broke the law and that means they can never be responsible again. Really?"

It means they can never be trusted to be responsible again.

Quote :

"Not at all. I gave them no pass. They went to prison. They served their probation. They paid their fines. I keep my eye on them, but I don't say they can't piss in their house without supervision..."

Nobody is talking about supervised pissing. We're talking about giving them power.

Quote :

"Well, again, in that case, keep him locked up forever. Put him to death. Be done with it!"

Do your arguments have to rely on extremes, or can you try making a rational argument?

Quote :

"I DON'T think we should codify that distrust forever."

I disagree. I've outlined why. You obviously disagree with them. I disagree with you. So on that point, since we're not getting anywhere, and this is nothing more of a debate of opinion, I will agree to disagree on this.

Quote :

"Self-actualization is, and should be. And if being sheriff is part of that for person X, then the pursuit of it should be denied to him."

I want to be a hitman. Pesky laws getting in my way and shit.

Quote :

"It gets to point quite fucking well. And you know it. And that's why you won't discuss it."

I did address it.

Does this not address your absurd example?

Quote :

"But you have no reason to not trust a black person outside of the fact that he's black. A felon, by definition, broke the law. A sheriff, by definition, upholds the law. Do you see the conflict? Do you see how it's irrational to not trust a black man, but it's rational to not trust a felon in a position of power where he's expected to uphold the law, especially when you consider the dismal job our prisons do at reforming people."

I think it does.

Quote :

"Right. You agree that the lack of trust in a black person is irrational. I posit that an abject lack of trust in all felons is equally irrational. I defy you to prove that no felon can be trusted ever again."

I don't need to prove that no felon can never be trusted again in order for it to be rational. I can't exactly prove that God doesn't exist, so does it make me a irrational human being if I deny his existence? I don't think so. I can give rational arguments as to why I don't believe that he exists. Similarly, I can give rational arguments as to why a felon can't be trusted, as I have already done. You disagree with my arguments. I'm not saying that your arguments are irrational, I disagree with them. It's simple to take two sides of a situation and present rational arguments for and against each side with neither side being right or wrong in a "true" sense (if such a thing exists).

But to simply dismiss someone as being irrational because they don't agree with you, well that's just stupid. That's why you're a pain in the ass to discuss things with. Because if the person doesn't agree with you, they're stupid and irrational.

Quote :

"Rather, I am positing they should be able to run. Massive difference. Vital difference."

I'm aware of what you're stating. Are you aware of what I'm stating and why? I agree, the differences are large.

Quote :

"And so is saying no felons are trustworthy."

Again, you are far too optimistic when it comes to humanity.

Quote :

"False. I'm willing to RISK that in an abjectly improbable scenario to preserve the rights and dignity of another man."

I'm aware that you're willing to "risk" the well-being of others to preserve the rights and dignity of another man. But who are you to make that risk for those people?

Quote :

"You, however, are saying that all felons are terrible people who can't be trusted to take out the trash, effectively."

Straw-man. Stop it. Now. I never said all fellons are terrible people. I never said that I don't trust them to take out the trash. On the contrary. I stated earlier that if I was a hiring manager, that I would consider a felon's application, depending on the job. I said I don't trust them to be a sheriff. Someone who has a record of breaking the law shouldn't be trusted to uphold it.

Quote :

"Good example. Do we thus pass an amendment that says that no former alcoholic can ever buy a beer again? Of course not."

Thanks, but bad rebuttal. If a former alcoholic falls of the wagon, they hurt themselves. If a felon "falls of the wagon," hundreds, if not thousands, are affected.

Quote :

"I don't curtail his right to self-actualization."

Since when is it a "right?"

Quote :

"possibly, but do you really think the average white-collar criminal is the maniacal evil sociopath that you described? I think not..."

Then I think you're naive. I think many white-collar criminals, hell, even politicians, are sociopaths.

Quote :

"Because it requires an extreme convergence of events for it to happen and for the felon to be able to capitalize on it, that's why. Sure, people run uncontested for sheriff. Very few do so, except in small towns. And in small towns, everyone knows everyone, so everyone knows if the guy running is a felon."

I prefer to protect against extreme circumstances when it is reasonable to do so.

Quote :

"Really, so you would convict a man on no more evidence than that he was a prior felon? Really? Really..."

Convict him of what? I'm not talking about sending him back to jail.

It's as if you think that this would be the only time where a felon is not allowed to do something. There's quite a few jobs in private corporations where they will refuse to hire someone because they're a felon. Should they be forced to hire the felon because they're infringing on his "right" to self-actualization and because it's discriminatory?

Quote :

"when the exposure to corruption requires other higher levels or corruption to have already existed?"

What? Damn, you really underestimate what people are capable of doing.

Quote :

"Really? The felon bought every lawyer in the county? He bought every judge in the county? He bought every voter in the county? On a small-town sheriff's salary?"

I never said they bought out every lawyer, or even a lawyer. Yes. I know what I said, but it was to your reply which included other police officers. So yes, I think a sheriff can pay off a cop or use his position of power to pressure a cop to help him out.

Quote :

"That first requires him to do so without being caught. Now, we have a felon with deep pockets, buying every one off in town, and he's so smart that he's not gonna be caught... But he got caught the first time, thus the reason he's a felon? Wait, what?"

Do you know how much a sheriff can be paid? I found one in Tenn. who was running uncontested for sheriff, and the seat paid $100,000+. So yeah, they have relatively deep pockets. And you don't need to "buy everyone off in town." Those are your words, NOT MINE. Stop with the strawmen. Just because he got caught the first time, doesn't mean he will be caught the second time, unless you care to prove me otherwise.

Quote :

"Absolutely not. The sheriff of Wake County isn't going to run uncontested!"

I'm not calling you out on your claim that population density and location won't influence whether a seat is uncontested, but rather that you keep bringing it up as if it was relevant to the matter. You seem to treat people in small towns as being lesser and not mattering as much as people in larger towns. I agree with you that running uncontested is far more likely in a small town. I disagree with its relevancy.

10/16/2010 1:52:50 AM

Quote :

"seriously, address the fact that this scenario involves such an insanely improbably convergence of things as to be nigh on impossible!"

Ok. I love repeating myself.

Quote :

"It requires that the last sheriff have died unexpectedly shortly before the filing deadline."

Oh right... Because sheriffs can't retire or do something else.

Quote :

"It requires the felon to be in the right town at the right time."

There are thousands of small towns in the US, and it's easier to conceal that you're a felon in a small town. There's less of a chance that you'll attract police attention, or less of a chance that someone you know who knows your a felon will fuck you over. Also, people in smaller towns seem to be more trusting.

Quote :

"It requires that the locals know absolutely nothing about thus guy, yet still vote him in as sheriff."

It just requires that they don't know that he's a felon. Plenty of people move across the country to get away from their past and "start over." They just don't tell anyone that he's a felon.

Quote :

"It then requires him later to buy off all the lawyers and judges in town, on a small-town sheriff's salary."

First of all, it doesn't require him to buy of ANY lawyers and judges. Just a police officer or two to fabricate the evidence. As long as the lawyers and judges don't figure out that the evidence is fabricated, then why would he pay them off? If anything, a police officer or some lab technician doing the work can be paid off to lie on the stand. Hell, they don't even need a conviction, just enough to ruin the opponent's reputation. Let the court of opinion ruin him.

And you keep bringing up salary. Do you even know how much they're paid? DO YOU?

http://www1.salary.com/Sheriff-Police-Chief-salary.html

On average, around $95,000 a year.

Quote :

"In almost all scenarios, the situation is resolved without the felon getting elected by the simple existence of another candidate! The only scenario where we can't count on this is the absurdly impossible small-town scenario."

It's not an impossible scenario. Because you have such a optimistic view on society, you resort to extremes, which are easily rebutted. If anything, I just want you to stop using such extremes, so I don't have to spend as much rebutting them.

Quote :

"And yet you want to pass a broad amendment to prevent this absurdly impossible scenario which ends up hurting the highly more likely reformed-felon-wanting-to-be-sheriff scenario which, as unlikely as it is, is infinitely more probable than the evil-small-town-sheriff one."

Do you have anything to back up this claim, more than personal belief?

Quote :

"In fact I would go so far as to say I'd bet that in the last 50 years, less than 10 sheriffs in all the US were: 1) Prior Felons 2) Ran Uncontested for Sheriff 3) Once in office, proceeded to engage in corruption "

Why risk it?

Quote :

"That to my mind is a minor problem, and one that is better solved through other means."

You seem to see "minor" as being the chance of it happening. IE, a minor chance of it happening. I'm more concerned about impact.

Quote :

"Then the solution is to give them an option, not to remove options."

Then who would fill the roll of sheriff?

Quote :

"If Blagojevich decided to run for Sheriff, you don't think you might be better off electing the guy that got busted for selling pot or cock fighting?"

I think i would be better off having none of them as an option.

Quote :

"Yet isn't this amendment precisely a reactionary policy?"

Not at all. In order for it to be reactionary, it has to have happened. I believe this mainly came about because some people who are felons can't own guns, and as such, have been told they can't run for sheriff. Additionally, a guy in prison attempted to run for sheriff. I think one such sheriff pleaded to a felony conviction of obstruction of justice in return for no jail time. As such, he lost his job because he can't carry a gun. He still wants to be sheriff and he's making the argument that he doesn't need to be able to carry a gun to do his job. So we then arrived to this referendum.

10/16/2010 1:53:15 AM

I don't have time to read the aaronburro/merbig exchange, but I do want to point this out:

Quote :

"I find it reprehensible to extend such punishments for life regardless of the time the spent in prison."

You don't have a problem with life in prison (possibly even the death penalty?) I assume. So you don't have a problem with extended punishments. You have a problem with certain crimes being punished as much as they are. Which is certainly a topic for discussion. As I've already said, certain felonies should be downgraded or made into separate classes for this purpose. Otherwise, this is a matter of what crimes you think should be crimes and nothing else.

10/16/2010 3:53:30 AM

Quote :

"Why risk it? "

Because there is more risk in allowing the government to deny entire classes of citizens the rights and privileges of being a citizen than there is in the possibility of a prior felon running uncontested for sheriff and engaging in corruption after having been elected.

Because risk is the very nature of living in a free society.

Because there are other, better ways to solve the problem.

Quote :

"You seem to see "minor" as being the chance of it happening. IE, a minor chance of it happening. I'm more concerned about impact."

So do you have any evidence that the impact is worthy of an entirely new law when simply fixing our current system would better solve the problem and others at the same time? Or are you basing your entire support for this off of a feeling that you have?

Quote :

"Then who would fill the roll of sheriff? "

You tell me. You're the one who wants to prevent the felon from running at all. If in your theoretical town where a felon would run uncontested, if the felon can't run at all, who will fill the roll of the sheriff?

Further, if we continue with your theoretical town where the sheriff position is uncontested AND no one in the town knows the guy is a felon, how does this law stop him from being elected sheriff? If no one knows he's a felon, no one is going to think this law would apply. Or are you suggesting that if this law were in place, people would run background checks on their potential sherif candidates as a matter of course? In which case, why not simply require that criminal background checks be public knowledge for all elected position candidates?

Quote :

"I think i would be better off having none of them as an option. "

To quote you, "Then who would fill the roll of sheriff?"

Of course, if your law were in place, you'd have Blagojevich running uncontested, and to you, that's apparently preferable than having a the option to vote for someone who stole some vegetables from a farmer's field (GS 14-78), or stole some pine needles (GS 14-79.1, or the guy who's a bigamist (GS 14-183). And we certainly can't trust anyone who carries a taser for their own protection (GS 14-269).

Of course, you will say that's a problem with what is classified as a felony, which I agree. So fix those first, and then we'll revisit this idea of banning felons from public office.

Quote :

"Additionally, a guy in prison attempted to run for sheriff. I think one such sheriff pleaded to a felony conviction of obstruction of justice in return for no jail time. As such, he lost his job because he can't carry a gun. He still wants to be sheriff and he's making the argument that he doesn't need to be able to carry a gun to do his job. So we then arrived to this referendum. "

So then this is reactionary?

Quote :

"You don't have a problem with life in prison (possibly even the death penalty?) I assume. So you don't have a problem with extended punishments. You have a problem with certain crimes being punished as much as they are. Which is certainly a topic for discussion. "

There is a difference between being sentenced to a life term or being sentenced to death, and being sentenced to a shorter term and then being denied rights and privileges after that term. Even more so when those rights and privileges are being denied after the fact.

10/16/2010 11:56:26 AM

Quote :

"Because there is more risk in allowing the government to deny entire classes of citizens the rights and privileges of being a citizen than there is in the possibility of a prior felon running uncontested for sheriff and engaging in corruption after having been elected."

I love how you make some general sweeping comment about "denying ENTIRE classes of citizens rights," to make a plea to emotion and imply that there is some grave injustice. Citizens are capable of losing rights. We take away the rights and privileges of entire classes of citizens everyday. A convicts are citizens. We take their rights and privileges away.

Not all classes of citizens are equal. Convicts aren't equal with people who aren't in jail. Felons aren't equal with non-felons.

Quote :

"So do you have any evidence that the impact is worthy of an entirely new law when simply fixing our current system would better solve the problem and others at the same time? Or are you basing your entire support for this off of a feeling that you have?"

That's the problem with a democracy. Decisions aren't made off of evidence. They're made off of the will of the majority. Sometimes the will of the majority is backed up by evidence, sometimes it is not.

But, how should we be fixing our current system to keep convicts from being sheriff?

Quote :

"If in your theoretical town where a felon would run uncontested, if the felon can't run at all, who will fill the roll of the sheriff?"

I guess nobody. That, or it could be an appointed position if nobody runs.

Quote :

"Or are you suggesting that if this law were in place, people would run background checks on their potential sherif candidates as a matter of course?"

Sure, after being elected.

Quote :

"In which case, why not simply require that criminal background checks be public knowledge for all elected position candidates?"

Wouldn't making that information public knowledge be an invasion of privacy?

Quote :

"Of course, if your law were in place, you'd have Blagojevich running uncontested, and to you, that's apparently preferable than having a the option to vote for someone who stole some vegetables from a farmer's field (GS 14-78), or stole some pine needles (GS 14-79.1, or the guy who's a bigamist (GS 14-183). And we certainly can't trust anyone who carries a taser for their own protection (GS 14-269)."

Didn't you suggest a "none of the above" option? And didn't I agree with it? Yes. I believe so. Stop repeating yourself.

Quote :

"So then this is reactionary?"

Being as how these guys aren't sheriffs with felonies, no. It's more of a way to clarify the law. Right now, there is the contention that they can't serve as sheriff because they can't carry guns. Again, they contend that they can serve as sheriff as carrying a gun isn't vital to the job. Both sides make valid points.

10/16/2010 12:22:01 PM

If there's one thing more dangerous than corruption in government, it's ignorance and complacency among the population at large. Given that the status of felon is applied almost arbitrarily, especially in cases where the person in question has harmed no one in any way, it should not be used as a measuring stick.

Now, do we want people that have been convicted of murder, larceny, or embezzlement becoming a Sheriff? Probably not, and if the constitutional amendment reflected that, it'd be a little more reasonable. We shouldn't keep people out of office because they, say, grew a plant.

10/16/2010 1:05:57 PM

Quote :

"Citizens are capable of losing rights. We take away the rights and privileges of entire classes of citizens everyday. A convicts are citizens. We take their rights and privileges away."

Just because we already ignore our own laws does not mean that we should continue to do so. Further, if you can't make the distinction between convicting someone of a crime and the punishment associated with that, and declaring someone ineligible for the rights of any other citizen after the fact as well as perpetual punishment beyond the initial sentencing, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Quote :

"That's the problem with a democracy. Decisions aren't made off of evidence. They're made off of the will of the majority. Sometimes the will of the majority is backed up by evidence, sometimes it is not. "

That's the problem with a direct democracy. Lucky for us, we're a republic, and further, we have the Constitution which outlines specifically what sort of things our government can do, and arbitrarily denying classes of citizens the rights and privileges of other citizens via legislative fiat is one of the things our government can not do. Further, while it may be a risk of democratic governments that simple mob rule is how things are run, that does not free us the citizens from our responsibility to use more than mere feelings to establish our laws and rules.

Quote :

"But, how should we be fixing our current system to keep convicts from being sheriff?"

Among other things, you can keep convicts in jail for the entire duration of time which you feel they are unable to be trusted with the rights and privileges of a free citizen. You can also provide people with the option to vote for none of the above, and a requirement that candidates for elected office publish their criminal background checks.

Quote :

"I guess nobody. That, or it could be an appointed position if nobody runs. "

So in your theoretical town, no one is able or willing to run for sheriff, but we're going to appoint someone anyway? And how is this better than simply allowing the felon to be elected and just keeping an eye on him if you don't trust him?

Quote :

"Sure, after being elected."

So then the law didn't actually prevent him from being elected in the first place?

Quote :

"Wouldn't making that information public knowledge be an invasion of privacy? "

I'm fairly certain that state criminal records are public knowledge regardless. Barring a sealed record or juvenile convictions, any one can conduct a background check on anyone else for any reason. In fact, north carolina has a website where you can do this for free:

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/offendersearch.do?method=view

Quote :

"Didn't you suggest a "none of the above" option? And didn't I agree with it? Yes. I believe so. Stop repeating yourself. "

Yet you think that this law is a better option. Why?

Quote :

"It's more of a way to clarify the law. Right now, there is the contention that they can't serve as sheriff because they can't carry guns. Again, they contend that they can serve as sheriff as carrying a gun isn't vital to the job. Both sides make valid points. "

A clarification of the law would be that carrying a gun is or is not a requirement of being the sheriff. The proposed amendment is not clarification, it's reaction.

10/16/2010 1:08:54 PM

Quote :

"Just because we already ignore our own laws does not mean that we should continue to do so."

What laws are we ignoring? These are state laws and this is a state law. Nothing is being ignored. The states are within their rights to determine the qualifications of an elected position. Now. You may not agree with the qualifications, and that's ok. That is what this debate is about.

Quote :

"Further, if you can't make the distinction between convicting someone of a crime and the punishment associated with that, and declaring someone ineligible for the rights of any other citizen after the fact as well as perpetual punishment beyond the initial sentencing, then there's no point in continuing this conversation."

You're unable to recognize that losing rights from being classified as a felon is a part of that punishment associated with being convicted of the crime. You simple think it's "wrong" to perpetually punish someone when they are out of prison. Being classified as a felon isn't the only time when someone is punished for life (or close to it). If you get a dishonorable discharge, you also lose rights and privileges enjoyed by the general public and other ex-soldiers.

Additionally, it's very possible that the classification of felon IS the punishment. The person may not go to jail, and at the very worse, they will have some probation. The use of felon is the punishment. The lose of certain rights and privileges is what they want the punishment to be. And some people accept that as their punishment to stay out of jail.

Quote :

"Lucky for us, we're a republic, and further, we have the Constitution which outlines specifically what sort of things our government can do, and arbitrarily denying classes of citizens the rights and privileges of other citizens via legislative fiat is one of the things our government can not do."

More bullshit. Again, these are STATE laws. The states have the power to setup qualifications for publicly held offices. In addition to that, this is a state constitutional amendment. Everything is being done BY the book. You just disagree with the amendment.

Quote :

"Further, while it may be a risk of democratic governments that simple mob rule is how things are run, that does not free us the citizens from our responsibility to use more than mere feelings to establish our laws and rules."

You're right, it doesn't. But you didn't think we lived in a perfect world, did you?

Quote :

"Among other things, you can keep convicts in jail for the entire duration of time which you feel they are unable to be trusted with the rights and privileges of a free citizen."

Or we can let a convict out and continue to punish him. To be a free citizen, that means obeying the laws and rules set forth by society and the government. You break them, you lose your rights. And sometimes, depending on what you break, you may lose some rights forever.

Quote :

"And how is this better than simply allowing the felon to be elected and just keeping an eye on him if you don't trust him?"

They can't be a felon... Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Quote :

"So then the law didn't actually prevent him from being elected in the first place?"

After the votes are tallied, the background check is ran. If he is a felon, he is promptly not allowed to take his place and the runner-up does. The amendment doesn't read "no person convicted of a felony may be elected as Sheriff." It reads "no person convicted of a felony may serve as Sheriff." The law prevents him from serving.

Funny how words and their order work in legal documents.

Quote :

"I'm fairly certain that state criminal records are public knowledge regardless. Barring a sealed record or juvenile convictions, any one can conduct a background check on anyone else for any reason."

I did not know this.

Although, I am wondering if it lists felonies for people who committed them out of state and only lists felonies for people who committed them within the state of NC.

Quote :

"Yet you think that this law is a better option. Why?"

New qualifications > Old qualifications

As to why. Read the thread.

Quote :

"A clarification of the law would be that carrying a gun is or is not a requirement of being the sheriff. The proposed amendment is not clarification, it's reaction."

Naw. It's clarification.

10/16/2010 5:15:32 PM

Quote :

" What laws are we ignoring? These are state laws and this is a state law."

See laws about equal protection under the law, and ex post facto laws. The proposal is in reaction to people currently seeking office, we can not pass a law to prevent them from seeking office for a crime previously committed. The law could prevent future felons from seeking office, and that would be within the bounds of the law. However, I also argue that defining classes of citizens who's rights can be arbitrarily taken away via legislative fiat is also wrong.

Quote :

"You're unable to recognize that losing rights from being classified as a felon is a part of that punishment associated with being convicted of the crime."

But it isn't. They aren't being punished for their crime, they're being punished for being a felon. Declaring a class of citizens who can have new punishments added to their terms by legislative fiat is wrong.

Here's an example of why this is wrong, and how it can be abused. North Carolina has a Crimes Against Nature statute which makes certain sexual acts a felony. So let's say that the bigots in NC get up enough people to gain a majority in the legislature. They decide they've had enough of "them thar queer folk" and start pushing for prosecution under the CAN statute. Suddenly gay men and women across the state start losing their right to vote, their right to run for office and their right to self defense even after they are released from jail, and they can be further harassed with more punishments in the future because they are now felons.

We as a society are better off allowing people to vote none of the above.

Quote :

"ou simple think it's "wrong" to perpetually punish someone when they are out of prison. Being classified as a felon isn't the only time when someone is punished for life (or close to it). If you get a dishonorable discharge, you also lose rights and privileges enjoyed by the general public and other ex-soldiers. "

And I'm sure you will be surprised to find I have problems with that as well.

Quote :

"Additionally, it's very possible that the classification of felon IS the punishment. "

But it isn't. We just abuse it that way.

Quote :

"More bullshit. Again, these are STATE laws. The states have the power to setup qualifications for publicly held offices. In addition to that, this is a state constitutional amendment. Everything is being done BY the book. You just disagree with the amendment. "

US Constitution, Article I, Section 10
US Constitution, Amendment XIV Section 1

Quote :

"You're right, it doesn't. But you didn't think we lived in a perfect world, did you? "

I don't. The fact that we live in an imperfect world, however, is not justification for doing the wrong thing or making it more imperfect.

Quote :

"Or we can let a convict out and continue to punish him. To be a free citizen, that means obeying the laws and rules set forth by society and the government. You break them, you lose your rights. And sometimes, depending on what you break, you may lose some rights forever."

And that is wrong.

Quote :

"They can't be a felon... Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

Because appointing someone who doesn't want to be sheriff is preferable to a guy who once stole a guy's TV being sheriff?

Quote :

"After the votes are tallied, the background check is ran. If he is a felon, he is promptly not allowed to take his place and the runner-up does. The amendment doesn't read "no person convicted of a felony may be elected as Sheriff." It reads "no person convicted of a felony may serve as Sheriff." The law prevents him from serving. Funny how words and their order work in legal documents."

Ah, even better. So our proposal is to deny the people the right to elect their government officers, even if the people chose to elect a known felon over someone else? Excellent, "voters are stupid so we'll choose what's good for them".

Quote :

" Although, I am wondering if it lists felonies for people who committed them out of state and only lists felonies for people who committed them within the state of NC."

I'm sure it will blow your mind to discover that criminal background checks are available in every state and as far as I know, are public record in all of them.

10/16/2010 6:49:20 PM

As to the ex post facto issue, that does not apply. The U.S. Constitution has no bearing on qualifications for local elected office. The 14th Amendment due process clause does not apply in a situation where the only "right" one can be considered to be losing here is a state right.

Even if it did apply, the argument is not sound. Ex post facto laws have already been held valid, as in applying registration to sex offenders and prohibition on gun ownership by those convicted of certain offenses. This was done to all prior convicted offenders.

This is not a federal issue. It's a state issue. Whether it is legal and whether it should be passed are two separate questions. And truthfully, if an elected official cannot keep himself from being convicted of a felony, he shouldn't be in office. The bitching about drug and sex laws on the first page is stupid, because the fact is that even if those crimes were reduced to misdemeanors, if someone is convicted of either of those types of offenses, they don't need to be sheriff, felony or not.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 7:38 PM. Reason : c]

10/16/2010 7:28:31 PM

Quote :

"See laws about equal protection under the law, and ex post facto laws."

You realize not all laws that could be argued in being ex post facto have been found Constitutional?

One example is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

A more applicable example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban.

It affects people from before the ban was put in place, yet the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional as it is regulatory and not punitive.

You can think that it's still ex post facto, and that's fine. Fact is, the Supreme Court should have no reasoning to deem it UnConstitutional.

Quote :

"They aren't being punished for their crime, they're being punished for being a felon."

And being classified as a felon is a punishment for their crime. How are you not getting this? A felon isn't some arbitrary term we apply to someone who went to jail. We intentionally set up two categories of crimes, misdemeanor and felony. Had they committed a misdemeanor, then they wouldn't be banned.

Quote :

"Here's an example of why this is wrong, and how it can be abused. North Carolina has a Crimes Against Nature statute which makes certain sexual acts a felony. So let's say that the bigots in NC get up enough people to gain a majority in the legislature. They decide they've had enough of "them thar queer folk" and start pushing for prosecution under the CAN statute. Suddenly gay men and women across the state start losing their right to vote, their right to run for office and their right to self defense even after they are released from jail, and they can be further harassed with more punishments in the future because they are now felons."

The ban on felon sheriffs isn't being abused, it's the CAN statute which is being abused. The ban isn't the problem, it's the statute.

You are against banning a felon from being sheriff on the basis that some other law can classify someone as a felon who doesn't deserve to a felon. Instead, you should be against laws that classify people as being a felon who don't deserve to be. Hell, you're not fixing the problem by banning felon sheriffs, or creating a new one. The problem is there right now, since being classified as a felon affects people outside of being able to be sheriff. It can affect their employment status and even social standing in the community.

Quote :

"But it isn't. We just abuse it that way."

Yes. Being classified as a felon IS a punishment. Jail isn't the only way to punish someone for life. Maybe the act committed by a person doesn't warrant a lifetime of imprisonment, but perhaps a lifetime of losing certain rights and privileges.

Quote :

"US Constitution, Article I, Section 10 US Constitution, Amendment XIV Section 1"

Disputed above.

Quote :

"And that is wrong."

I would rather be out of jail and lose a few rights/privileges than in jail for a longer term simply because you think felons shouldn't lose a few rights/privileges when released.

Quote :

"Because appointing someone who doesn't want to be sheriff is preferable to a guy who once stole a guy's TV being sheriff?"

Who said anything about appointing someone who doesn't want to be sheriff? This is the second time I've seen it from you. The first time I saw you say I let it go by. Now I'm going to stop this strawman from being built. STOP IT.

The sheriff could be someone from out of the county. With it not uncommon for 6 figure salaries of Sheriffs, I think they would be motived to move to the county.

Quote :

" So our proposal is to deny the people the right to elect their government officers, even if the people chose to elect a known felon over someone else? Excellent, "voters are stupid so we'll choose what's good for them"."

What if Obama wasn't a US born citizen (or considered one) and he still was elected President, but it was found out after the fact that he wasn't US born? Should he still be elected president? After all, you are on the position that you don't want to deny people the right to elect their government officers.

This has nothing to do with stupid voters, so again, STOP BUILDING STRAWMEN. This has to do with an uncontested sheriff who is a felon. This is about CHANGING the QUALIFICATIONS of Sheriff. We have qualifications on the age and nationality of our President. What makes those any more right or wrong than this? Hell, the qualifications of President discriminate against my age. And if I became a naturalized US citizen, then the US Constitution is DENYING me the RIGHTS that all US Born Citizens share. According to you, THAT IS WRONG, as we're building 2 different classes!

Quote :

"I'm sure it will blow your mind to discover that criminal background checks are available in every state and as far as I know, are public record in all of them."

And Federal background checks?

From the FBI's website:

Who May Request a Copy of a Record (or Proof That a Record Does Not Exist)

Only you can request a copy of your own Identification Record.

Individuals typically make this request for personal review, to challenge the information on record, to satisfy a requirement for adopting a child in the U.S. or internationally, or to satisfy a requirement to live, work, or travel in a foreign country (i.e., police certificate, letter of good conduct, criminal history background, etc.).

Background Checks for Employment or Licensing

If you are requesting a background check for employment or licensing within the U.S., you may be required by state statute or federal law to submit your request through your state identification bureau, the requesting federal agency, or another authorized channeling agency. You should contact the agency requiring the background check or the appropriate state identification bureau (or state police) for the correct procedures to follow for obtaining an FBI fingerprint background check for employment or licensing purposes.




OH SNAP. It looks like only the person who the background check is for and the states can make a formal request to the FBI for a background check. Must be something about protecting privacy or something.

10/16/2010 7:33:06 PM

Quote :

"The U.S. Constitution has no bearing on qualifications for local elected office. The 14th Amendment due process clause does not apply in a situation where the only "right" one can be considered to be losing here is a state right. "

Article 1 Section 10 applies to the states. Further, I don't quite see how you figure the 14th amendment doesn't apply if it's only a state right. Would a state be able to deny black people from voting in state elections?

Quote :

"Even if it did apply, the argument is not sound. Ex post facto laws have already been held valid, as in applying registration to sex offenders and prohibition on gun ownership by those convicted of certain offenses. This was done to all prior convicted offenders. "

It may surprise you to know that I don't view the failings of the law and of the supreme court to uphold the constitution as support for passing other unconstitutional laws.

Quote :

"The bitching about drug and sex laws on the first page is stupid, because the fact is that even if those crimes were reduced to misdemeanors, if someone is convicted of either of those types of offenses, they don't need to be sheriff, felony or not."

Then don't vote for them.

Quote :

"One example is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. A more applicable example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. It affects people from before the ban was put in place, yet the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional as it is regulatory and not punitive. You can think that it's still ex post facto, and that's fine. Fact is, the Supreme Court should have no reasoning to deem it UnConstitutional."

See above, two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote :

"And being classified as a felon is a punishment for their crime. How are you not getting this?"

Because the problem is we're then using that classification to retroactively add to the punishment. How are you not getting why that is a bad thing?

Quote :

"The ban on felon sheriffs isn't being abused, it's the CAN statute which is being abused. The ban isn't the problem, it's the statute."

They're both problems. Without a ban on felons, the legislature can't abuse criminal law to deny people rights and privileges.

Quote :

"You are against banning a felon from being sheriff on the basis that some other law can classify someone as a felon who doesn't deserve to a felon. Instead, you should be against laws that classify people as being a felon who don't deserve to be. "

Why can't I be against both? Why can't I be against allowing the government more power to arbitrarily strip rights from their citizens.

Quote :

"Yes. Being classified as a felon IS a punishment. Jail isn't the only way to punish someone for life. Maybe the act committed by a person doesn't warrant a lifetime of imprisonment, but perhaps a lifetime of losing certain rights and privileges."

Any crime serious enough to deny someone their rights or privileges for the rest of their life, and also to relegate them to a status where any other rights or privileges may be restricted or taken away by legislative fiat, is a crime serious enough to keep them locked up.

Quote :

"The sheriff could be someone from out of the county. With it not uncommon for 6 figure salaries of Sheriffs, I think they would be motived to move to the county. "

Again, so it is more preferable to appoint someone from outside the county rather than allow the voters to choose?

Quote :

"This has to do with an uncontested sheriff who is a felon. "

So give the people the option to vote for none of the above.

Quote :

"And Federal background checks? "

I would imagine that if such was a requirement of running for office, that it would fall under "Background Checks for Employment", which are clearly legal

But now we're really going into a fantasy land. So now what you are proposing amending the NC constitution for is a situation in which someone who:

1) Is a convicted felon, released from prison and desiring to run for sheriff
2) Convicted on federal felony charges without any public record of this conviction
3) Is entirely unknown in the county
4) Runs entirely uncontested
5) And subsequently engages in corruption

All of which could be equally well avoided simply by giving the citizens the right to vote "None of the Above".

Note that all of the problems with having a "None of the Above" option apply equally to banning felons from serving. On the other hand, there are more problems with banning felons from serving that don't apply to having a "None of the Above" option.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 9:49 PM. Reason : sdaf]

10/16/2010 9:48:14 PM

Quote :

"It may surprise you to know that I don't view the failings of the law and of the supreme court to uphold the constitution as support for passing other unconstitutional laws."

Unfortunately for you, nobody really cares about your interpretation of the Constitution.

Quote :

"Because the problem is we're then using that classification to retroactively add to the punishment. How are you not getting why that is a bad thing?"

Because it's not bad. The same reason why it's not bad to make sex offenders update their information every 3 months, even though this applies retroactively to sex offenders of 2006. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is Constitutional. Now, I know, you disagree with the ruling, but whether you disagree with it or not, is irrelevant.

Quote :

"They're both problems. Without a ban on felons, the legislature can't abuse criminal law to deny people rights and privileges."

I wouldn't classifying them as abused. They broke the social contract. The consequences is a reduction of rights.

Quote :

"Any crime serious enough to deny someone their rights or privileges for the rest of their life, and also to relegate them to a status where any other rights or privileges may be restricted or taken away by legislative fiat, is a crime serious enough to keep them locked up."

Bullshit, and you know it. Assault with a deadly weapon doesn't warrant a life of imprisonment, but rather the stripping away of the right to have a gun. Again, it's the consequence of breaking the social contract that we're all in.

But I think you're now getting the point that you're going to take up absurd positions and notions just so you can still defend your position against punishment outside of imprisonment.

Quote :

"Again, so it is more preferable to appoint someone from outside the county rather than allow the voters to choose?"

If the voters can't choose someone who meets the qualifications, and the position needs to be filled, then yes, appointing someone from outside of the county to be sheriff is preferable to the people being forced to have a felon as sheriff.

Quote :

"So give the people the option to vote for none of the above."

That's not what's on the table. You keep bringing this up, and I keep saying that I agree with the option. But that's not what the bill is proposing. I've also clarified that I would rather take the banning of felons from being sheriff over allowing them, incase you want to say, "you would rather take a bad option over a better option." Unfortunately, the better option is NOT on the table. So while we can discuss it, it's moot to debate over it.

Quote :

"I would imagine that if such was a requirement of running for office, that it would fall under "Background Checks for Employment", which are clearly legal"

Of course they are. But a person running for office isn't being employed yet. They're not actually employed in the position.

Quote :

"All of which could be equally well avoided simply by giving the citizens the right to vote "None of the Above"."

But again, this option isn't what's being discussed, and I'm not going to hold my breath for it to be proposed.

Here's the situation:

We're being asked whether we should amend the NC Constitution to ban felons from serving as Sheriff. We are NOT being asked if we should implement a none of the above option on the ballot, or doing any type of reclassification of felons.

There are two options to consider. While you're free to bring up other hypothetical options that could be better than the two options now, it's POINTLESS.

I'm sure you're going to voe against the referendum. I'll be voting for it. The way I see it, is that is all comes down to a matter of opinion. You can try to cite the Constitution for your reasoning, and I can site the SC. You an site hypothetical options that could be better, and I can dismiss them because they're not being offered. You can site your emotions and reasoning on the subject by stating that you feel that it's wrong to extend punishment past prison, and I can site my emotions and reasoning by stating that taking away a person's rights is a fine punishment when the act isn't severe enough to warrant lifetime imprisonment or any imprisonment.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2010 10:37:55 PM

Again, there is a difference between a federal and state right. If you were barred for voting based on your skin color, then you would be violating the Federal Civil Rights Act. There is no federal right to run for sheriff of a locality. You do, however, have a federal right not to be discriminated against based on skin color. The two issues are not analagous, because there is no federal statute being violated here.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide blanket coverage against any perceived ill in this country. There are intentionally many holes left, designed to be filled by the states, as precisely addressed by the 10th Amendment, and the fact that the section you reference addresses the very specific prohibitions placed on the states.

Also, as a side note, I can pretty much guarantee that you haven't read the Supreme Court opinions related to the two cases mentioned about the valid application of ex post facto laws, so decrying them as incorrect is a bit much. The Supreme Court has on many occasions put limits on the rights expressed in the Constitution. If you have a particular problem with their reasoning, that's one thing, but you are only looking at their conclusions. It's a bit like saying that if the Supreme Court were to bar the private ownership of tanks or rocket launchers, then simply because they were limiting the 2nd Amendment in any way, that is unconstitutional and invalid. (For the record, I neither agree nor disagree with their decisions in those cases, I was merely mentioning them as precedent for why ex post facto laws are not a prima facie violation of the Constitution.)

McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), specifically addresses how the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause is to be read narrowly, to protect only federal rights. That's a case where the conclusion the court reaches supports a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, but their reasoning still supports my point that the 14th Amendment does not apply. The main point is that cases should not be read based on their conclusions, but based on their reasonings.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM. Reason : k]

10/16/2010 10:46:10 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately for you, nobody really cares about your interpretation of the Constitution. ... Now, I know, you disagree with the ruling, but whether you disagree with it or not, is irrelevant. "

Irrelevant to the fact of their existence? Yes. Irrelevant to whether they provide support to your argument that we should go ahead with this amendment? No. If I argue with you that NC should have a "castle doctrine" law, and tell you that other states have such laws and the courts have upheld them, that doesn't make it a good argument in support of why NC should have one too. So it is here, just because we've passed other broken laws and upheld them does not mean that we should pass another broken law.

Quote :

"I wouldn't classifying them as abused. They broke the social contract. The consequences is a reduction of rights."

The problem is, the consequences are being changed after the fact. It's the same as if we decided tomorrow that anyone who ever pled guilty to a speeding ticket can no longer drive in NC. After all, you broke the social contract.

Quote :

"Bullshit, and you know it. Assault with a deadly weapon doesn't warrant a life of imprisonment, but rather the stripping away of the right to have a gun. "

Sorry, that doesn't work. If someone has no right to a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed free where they can get a gun despite laws to the contrary. If you can't trust someone with the rights of a free person, they should not be a free person.

Quote :

"But I think you're now getting the point that you're going to take up absurd positions and notions just so you can still defend your position against punishment outside of imprisonment. "

It's not absurd, nor do I object to punishment outside of imprisonment. I object to ever changing punishment in perpetuity outside of prison.

Quote :

"If the voters can't choose someone who meets the qualifications, and the position needs to be filled, then yes, appointing someone from outside of the county to be sheriff is preferable to the people being forced to have a felon as sheriff."

If the voters vote for the felon, how are they forced?

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the better option is NOT on the table. So while we can discuss it, it's moot to debate over it."

It is relevant to the debate. If we are asking ourselves if we should amend the NC constitution to exclude felons from serving in public office, it is perfectly relevant to point out that we should not amend the constitution because there are other, less intrusive and more constructive laws that can be passed to solve the problems which are attempting to be addressed by the proposed amendment. In other words, whether or not a "none of the above" option is on the table, it is a valid argument for an alternative to the current proposal and a reason to vote no on the current proposal.

Quote :

"We're being asked whether we should amend the NC Constitution to ban felons from serving as Sheriff. "

And the answer is No, for all of the reasons outlined above, INCLUDING that there is an alternative law we could enact which would solve the same problems and be less intrusive.

Quote :

"Again, there is a difference between a federal and state right. If you were barred for voting based on your skin color, then you would be violating the Federal Civil Rights Act. There is no federal right to run for sheriff of a locality. You do, however, have a federal right not to be discriminated against based on skin color. "

It's worth pointing out that the FCRA only refers to voting in federal elections. There is no federal right to vote for sheriff.

Quote :

"Also, as a side note, I can pretty much guarantee that you haven't read the Supreme Court opinions related to the two cases mentioned about the valid application of ex post facto laws, so decrying them as incorrect is a bit much."

I can also pretty much guarantee that when they were cited in support of this amendment, that they were not cited on their reasoning, but rather on their result. That said, you are right, I haven't read the full text, so I'll do that and get back to you.

10/17/2010 10:04:53 AM

Quote :

"No. If I argue with you that NC should have a "castle doctrine" law, and tell you that other states have such laws and the courts have upheld them, that doesn't make it a good argument in support of why NC should have one too. So it is here, just because we've passed other broken laws and upheld them does not mean that we should pass another broken law."

In law, the fact that higher courts have upheld the laws is a pretty good reason for their Constitutionality.

Additionally, this is not another "broken law."

Quote :

"The problem is, the consequences are being changed after the fact. It's the same as if we decided tomorrow that anyone who ever pled guilty to a speeding ticket can no longer drive in NC. After all, you broke the social contract."

Yeah, or we could make it illegal for anyone charged with raping a minor from being within 5 miles of a school after the fact that they were convicted. But that would be wrong simply because it's after the fact. I love sweeping generalizations.

Quote :

"Sorry, that doesn't work. If someone has no right to a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed free where they can get a gun despite laws to the contrary. If you can't trust someone with the rights of a free person, they should not be a free person."

Sorry, you haven't provided any substantial evidence to convince me why we shouldn't deny someone a freedom or privilege because they broke the social contract. You just keep repeating the same thing.

I look at it this way. A 5 year old is a cookie thief. His mother catches him. She knows it's likely he will steal more cookies. Therefore, should he be punished until she can trust him again? Should he be locked up in his room for an entire year? No. It's unjust. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. A better option would be to stop buying cookies so that he can't steal them anymore, or reduce the chance of him stealing them.

Quote :

"I object to ever changing punishment in perpetuity outside of prison."

k.

Quote :

"If we are asking ourselves if we should amend the NC constitution to exclude felons from serving in public office, it is perfectly relevant to point out that we should not amend the constitution because there are other, less intrusive and more constructive laws that can be passed to solve the problems which are attempting to be addressed by the proposed amendment. In other words, whether or not a "none of the above" option is on the table, it is a valid argument for an alternative to the current proposal and a reason to vote no on the current proposal."

You're perfectly welcome to vote "no" because you feel that there are better options. But when making a decision like this, I think the only rational way to do it is by comparing which available option is the best. If you come to the conclusion that there is a better unavailable option(s), and choose the worse of the two available because you don't like some of the compromises, then I can't say that I would be making a rational choice, because then all that I would be doing is holding my breath for the best option to come along.

Quote :

"And the answer is No, for all of the reasons outlined above, INCLUDING that there is an alternative law we could enact which would solve the same problems and be less intrusive."

The answer is Yes, for all of the reasons I outlined above, INCLUDING that the alternative law proposed by you is not being offered and there is never any hope of it being offered, and if it is ever offered, there is no reason why this could be repealed and that put in its place.

The decision all comes down to what you believe. I don't think that there is a right or wrong choice in this instance.

10/17/2010 11:06:21 AM

Quote :

"In law, the fact that higher courts have upheld the laws is a pretty good reason for their Constitutionality."

Constitutionality is not determined by the upholding of unconstitutional laws. We use case law to guide a decisions, but ultimately the constitutionality of a given law is determined on the merits of the law alone.

Quote :

"Yeah, or we could make it illegal for anyone charged with raping a minor from being within 5 miles of a school after the fact that they were convicted. But that would be wrong simply because it's after the fact. I love sweeping generalizations."

It would indeed be wrong. I'm glad we agree on something.

Let me put it to you this way. Why do you want to ban said person from being within 5 miles of the school? Because you are afraid they will commit another crime? If that is the case, why would you let them free at all? Do children not congregate in places other than schools? Is there some magic that protects a child who isn't at school from being victim? Or is it just that only children at school deserve protection from the predators?

Quote :

"A 5 year old is a cookie thief. His mother catches him. She knows it's likely he will steal more cookies. Therefore, should he be punished until she can trust him again? Should he be locked up in his room for an entire year? No. It's unjust. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. A better option would be to stop buying cookies so that he can't steal them anymore, or reduce the chance of him stealing them."

Ignoring for the moment that a mother's punishment is not a legal punishment, the proposed amendment is akin to after the mother stops buying cookies, she also decides that because he steals cookies, he's not allowed to be in the kitchen for life. And then later she decides that he can't eat cake either for life. And a few years later, because he stole cookies that one time a few years ago, he's grounded for life from going to any person's house who also may have cookies or cake. Even though since she cut down on the cookie buying he hasn't stolen any more cookies, the mere fact that he did so once before is used as continuing justification for new punishments.

Do you really find such a course of events reasonable, fair or just?

Quote :

"But when making a decision like this, I think the only rational way to do it is by comparing which available option is the best. If you come to the conclusion that there is a better unavailable option(s), and choose the worse of the two available because you don't like some of the compromises, then I can't say that I would be making a rational choice, because then all that I would be doing is holding my breath for the best option to come along."

Law is not a series of false dichotomies or zero sum games. Voting no on a law is not the equivalent of saying that no change is necessary. It is not rational to decide to amputate your arm due to an infected paper cut merely because that is the only option your doctor has provided you. It is far more rational to decline the amputation and seek alternative options first.

Quote :

"and if it is ever offered, there is no reason why this could be repealed and that put in its place."

It is not valid reasoning to suggest that a bad law should be voted for because it can be repealed later when a good law is put in place.

--------------

I have not yet completed reading the cases in question, but I should write down some thoughts on these cases and the proposed amendment. I'm writing this as I read, so apologies for any lack of coherence.

In US v. Comstock (Adam Walsh case)

1) The law was challenged on the "necessary and proper" clause, which has already be well abused (another discussion) but is also not an argument over ex post facto. Though the challengers brought challenges of ex post facto, double jeopardy and other BOR violations, the lower courts declined to address those challenges and ruled in the challenger's favor on the grounds of the violation of Art I Sec 8 and the "reasonable doubt" requirement. The federal appeals court upheld the dismissal on Art I sec 8 but did not address any other claims. Therefore when the SCOTUS took the case, it was on Art I Sec 8 grounds only. In fact, in making their ruling, the SCOTUS specifically assumed (but did not decide) that the law was permitted by all other parts of the constitution, and therefore did not ever consider the constitutionality on ex post facto grounds.

2) The section of the law being challenged was the civil commitment section, not the registry

3) The section being challenged required the government to argue their case to a judge, it was not applied with a blanket application. Although admittedly it only requires "clear and convincing evidence" as opposed to "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" upon which the law was also challenged, but the SCOTUS did not decide.

4) Part of the supreme court's ruling (point 2) essentially boils down to "We do similar things already, and this is a minor change so it's ok." It is this very slippery slope that I am concerned about. In fact the dissent later addresses this specifically noting:

"Yet even if the antiquity of a practice
could serve as a substitute for its constitutionality—and
the Court admits that it cannot,.—the Court over-
states the relevant history."

5) The dissent, (which I'm sure you will be surprised to find that I agree with) points out that in this ruling, the court decided that the law was "necessary and proper" to accomplish an end, but never decided whether that end was a power congress had in the first place. Instead they decided that since it was necessary and proper to an end, that it fell within the constitution. This goes against years of precedent and the plan text reading of the constitution.

6) The dissent also points out the potential for abuse of such laws, noting that in 20% of the cases brought under the law in question " §4248 allows a court to civilly commit an
individual without finding that he was ever charged with
or convicted of a federal crime involving sexual violence. "

7) The dissent also quotes the "Restatement of Torts" as so:

“There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third
person as to prevent him from causing physical harm
to another unless
“(a) a special relation exists between the actor and
the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor
to control the third person’s conduct, or
“(b) a special relation exists between the actor and
the other which gives to the other a right to protec-
tion.” Id., §315, at 122.

Noting that:

"Once the Federal Government’s criminal jurisdiction over
a prisoner ends, so does any “special relation[ship]” be-
tween the Government and the former prisoner."

Such an argument could be equally applied to the states.

I was not able to find the decisions relating to the gun ban, and I have other things to do right now. If someone has those decisions handy, I'll read them.

10/17/2010 11:58:03 AM

Something I forgot to add to the previous posting. Much has been said here about felons losing their right to vote. I should point out that in North Carolina, when you have been released from prison or have satisfied all of the conditions of a conditional release, all of your rights as a citizen a restored (federal ban on felons owning guns aside).

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_13/GS_13-1.html

This includes, according to the state elections board, the right to vote. The proposed amendment seeks to bar convicted felons, regardless of whether their citizenship has been restored. Even more reason to oppose the amendment.

10/17/2010 12:51:39 PM

I'm not going to go through your analysis piece by piece, sufficing to say that you looked at the wrong case for the Supreme Court's justification of sex offender laws in light of the ex post facto prohibitions of the Constitution. I understand that U.S. v. Comstock relates to 18 USCS Sec. 4248, which is the "Adam Walsh" law you're referring to, but that case was decided and reasoned on entirely different grounds.

Among other things, your interpretation of their use of the Restatement of Torts is faulty. That relates to the holding of an individual because a duty is owed to the general public to prevent harm. It falls into one of a small number of exceptions to the duty of reasonable care which provides for affirmative duties based on the creation of a special relationship. The dissent was saying that the majority was wrong in their examination of the Restatement (2nd), but nothing there has any relationship to ex post facto laws. The court was claiming that the government owes a duty to the public to prevent harm by the prisoner, and thus should be allowed to commit him.

If you really want to critique a decision, you should have looked at Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). That case is the Supreme Court justification for sex offender registry laws. It is actually cited in a footnote to Comstock.

Registration for a sex offender is not a punishment, and neither is putting in qualifications to serve as sheriff. The ex post facto clause does not apply here. I am fairly certain that no court would argue with the logic that where a felon is not allowed to carry a gun (which has been held to be acceptable), and we have widely held that law enforcement officers are required to carry guns at times in the implementation of their duties, to restrict those who can serve as sheriff to an individual who can carry a gun would serve the best interests of the community, and for those policy reasons alone a court would not overturn it.

It doesn't matter, though, if it's an amendment to the state constitution, the state court can't invalidate it, and the federal court would be overstepping their bounds to even take up the issue.

10/17/2010 3:14:19 PM

Since the Adam Walsh law and the Domestic Violence ban were the only two specific cases mentioned other than McDonald V. Chicago (which you cited after your challenge to read the opinions) you will have to forgive me for not investigating a case which was decided 3 years before the cited law was passed.

My specific point about the Restatement of Torts (though admittedly unclear and obscure) was in reference to a previous statement earlier in this thread where it was agued the state should protect the citizens from ex-felons running for office.

As to your point about it being and amendment so the court can't invalidate it. That's a perfectly fair point, but it's equally fair to cite current law and amendments and point out how a new amendment would violate or negate that current law as a reason not to vote for the amendment.

We could tomorrow amend the US constitution to do away with congress, declare Obama ruler for life and deny voting to anyone who's skin is lighter than khaki, but that would still be wrong and a violation of our current laws, even if amending the constitution would no longer make it a violation.

10/17/2010 4:22:37 PM

To address specifically Smith v. Doe, I'm sure you will find it no great surprise that I agree heavily with the dissent. In particular, I take severe issue with the court's dismissal of mandatory registration and reporting of the minutest of details as "not punitive" and also take issue with the distinction between civil and criminal law in regards to the application of the ex post facto clause. The clause does not read that states shall make no ex post facto law, unless they are civil laws.

10/17/2010 5:00:59 PM

Quote :

"Constitutionality is not determined by the upholding of unconstitutional laws. We use case law to guide a decisions, but ultimately the constitutionality of a given law is determined on the merits of the law alone."

Glad you're pretty much throwing out the entire reason why we have a Judicial system. The Constitutionality of a law, state or federal, is determined by the Judicial system's understanding and interpretation of the Constitution.

Quote :

"It would indeed be wrong. I'm glad we agree on something."

I don't agree. I thought I told you to stop with the bullshit strawmen. I know halloween is approaching, and strawmen are all the rage, but I'm personally not a fan.

Quote :

"Why do you want to ban said person from being within 5 miles of the school? Because you are afraid they will commit another crime? If that is the case, why would you let them free at all?"

Because it's unjust to keep someone locked up. I believe grand theft auto is a felony, but it would be unjust to lock someone up for 20-30 years, or even for the rest of their life. But it's impossible to say that after 10 years that they are truly "reformed." There is no set number or years, and no way to really tell whether someone has changed or not, or if they are capable of changing.

Quote :

"Do you really find such a course of events reasonable, fair or just?"

Except that's not what's happening, and you're becoming completely irrational in your examples. You're failing to recognize that the responsibilities of sheriff requires them to uphold the law. A felon is someone who didn't uphold the law. You want to brush this off as being irrelevant, but you know that is nothing more than a copout. A person who refused to follow the law should not be trusted to uphold it.

Additionally, many states may ban a felon from obtaining a license in a field relating to what they were charged with. I see no problem with this. As such, I see no reason to ban a felon from being sheriff, as they were charged with breaking the law, and the related field is in upholding the law.

Additonally, if a felon can't be a police officer, then they shouldn't be allowed to be a sheriff, as a sheriff is nothing more than a glorified police officer.

Quote :

"Voting no on a law is not the equivalent of saying that no change is necessary."

I never said that. Stop with the bullshit strawmen.

Quote :

"It is not rational to decide to amputate your arm due to an infected paper cut merely because that is the only option your doctor has provided you."

But if you have no hope, or a reason to believe, of ever receiving other treatment, then amputating your arm is a rational choice when the other choice (do nothing) is worse.

But this example of yours is hardly relevant to the situation at hand, as an alternative treatment is readily available, whereas an alternative choice to the current situation is not readily available.

The way I see it is this:

We want to build a power plant, and we assume cost isn't an issue. We have a plethora of options, obviously. We can build a Coal, gas, a wood or a Nuclear Power plant. These all of draw backs, from environmental damage to annihilation of the population within some 20 or so mile radius. Another option is Fusion Power. However, that option is currently unattainable. So do we choose the "Do nothing" approach, or do we bite the bullet and choose something to satisfy our needs, and when Fusion is available, we can get rid of current plant? Maybe you would wait until Fusion, but I would take Nuclear all the way.

Quote :

"It is not valid reasoning to suggest that a bad law should be voted for because it can be repealed later when a good law is put in place."

It is valid reasoning to choose the "bad" law (your word, not mine) over "Do nothing" when "Do nothing" is worse than the "bad" law.

10/17/2010 6:37:03 PM

Quote :

"I never said that. Stop with the bullshit strawmen. "

Quote :

"It is valid reasoning to choose the "bad" law (your word, not mine) over "Do nothing" when "Do nothing" is worse than the "bad" law."

Quoted without further comment.

As for everything else, I'm done, it's clear you aren't interested in debating in good faith.

10/17/2010 7:09:32 PM

Quote :

"Quoted without further comment."

I would have commented on that, seeing as how the first quote isn't related to the second one at all. I never said that if you voted no on a law that you are saying that you don't think a change in necessary.

I even said this:

Quote :

"You're perfectly welcome to vote "no" because you feel that there are better options."

You are clearly trying to imply that I said something that I clearly have not. Maybe I haven't made it clear, but I actually respect any choice that you decide to make. I understand and I follow your rational. I just don't agree with it.

However, it is YOU who is saying that my rational is not valid, a claim you haven't been able to back up, because it's not irrational to choose the best of two or more given options that you are presented with. It's called being decisive.

Quote :

"As for everything else, I'm done, it's clear you aren't interested in debating in good faith."

You're the one who's trying to put words into my mouth, you're the one who's presenting opinions as facts (IE, your constitutionality claim is mere opinion, whereas it's fact that the SC has upheld similar laws), you're the one who's trying to demonize the amendment by using phrases like "bad law," when referring to the amendment, even though I have told you more than once that just because YOU think it's bad, doesn't mean it's a "bad" law.

Have I tried to put words in your mouth and then argued off of the words I crammed down your throat? No, I don't think I have. Have I been presenting my opinions as facts? Nope. I've been presenting my opinions as opinions as best as I can. Additionally, if there was something that I was ambiguous about something, I apologized for that. Have I been trying to demonize or even do the opposite, put the amendment on a pedestal? Nope. I even conceded that a "none of the above" would be ideal.

If I have been debating in anything but good faith, I would like you to please point it out to me so that I can try to fix it and apologize.

10/17/2010 7:58:48 PM

What's a Constition?

10/22/2010 3:22:17 AM

It's like a Constitution, except that you can't ignore it at will.

(yes, there's a typo)

10/22/2010 4:25:44 AM

Also, just for the record, I'm leaning towards voting against this.

As has been pointed out, there are some stupid reasons why you might count as a felon, that shouldn't really preclude your from running for Sheriff for your entire life. Obviously the best solution would just be to get rid of those stupid reasons, but its still something to think about.

Another concern is that I believe on some level people can change and rehabilitation is possible, and this measure is sort of a stand against that.

And I'm not sure the state constitution is the best place to have this debate about sheriffs.

I totally get the argument for keeping criminals away from power. But I'm so sure this measure will overwhelmingly pass, that given my concerns, I'd rather it not pass so unanimously.

10/22/2010 8:51:19 AM

I said leaning before. I have now cast my vote against this amendment.

10/28/2010 4:26:27 AM

Quote :

"And I'm not sure the state constitution is the best place to have this debate about sheriffs"

Why exactly is that? For every other Constitutionally elected position in this state the parameters of the job in terms of qualifications is established by the Constitution.

Quote :

"I said leaning before. I have now cast my vote against this amendment."

Why don't you just take a picture of your ballot next time. It will save us all the hassle of having to go through everything in order to determine how you've voted.



On to the matter at hand, let's actually look at what constitutes felonies in the State of North Carolina. A lot of the items getting tossed about in this thread as being felonies are actually misdemeanors.

To get blasted for a felony drug possession, you have to have quite a bit of the substance on you. Far more than merely personal use.

[Edited on October 29, 2010 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2010 2:12:53 PM

Quote :

"For every other Constitutionally elected position in this state the parameters of the job in terms of qualifications is established by the Constitution."

e.g.

Quote :

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. ..."

Awesome. And after that there's already a disqualification for felons. The next article establishes the offices of sheriffs however and at first glance seems like the article VI disqualifications should apply.

10/29/2010 5:10:27 PM

I don't know the loophole they use.

As per the faith in god, that would be strictly unenforceable as it is Unconstitutional under the US Constitution.

10/29/2010 8:14:44 PM

yep. religious test FTW

10/29/2010 9:28:51 PM

I worked the polls at the Durham Board of Elections today for the Lawson campaign, and found something interesting on this.

The Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, the GOP, the Dems, the Libertarians, and the Durham People's Alliance all were handing out voter guides and filled in ballots with their endorsements.

Every one of them were against this amendment. Half a dozen judges and judicial candidates were there in person campaigning, and every one of them is against it. Which made me ask: who is for it?

10/30/2010 12:00:46 AM

it would depend on the felon, so blanket, no

10/30/2010 12:11:48 AM

^^ The Independent, for some reason

11/1/2010 10:45:09 AM

The people already have the power to decide whether they want to allow a felon to become a sheriff, so the amendment is really only giving the state more power.

How many sheriffs are felons? How many are of the "bad" variety? Just how bad of a problem is this? The whole thing just sounds like something that was fabricated to keep people's attention/emotions on a non-issue. "Do you want a murderer to be your sheriff?" "They took our jobs" etc.

[Edited on November 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM. Reason : -]

11/1/2010 12:01:57 PM

Actually no. You had 7 candidates for Sheriff in North Carolina this spring, so it isn't a manufactured problem.

Why the state has an interest in this? Simple, Sheriffs are the highest constitutionally elected authorities in the counties of North Carolina and have power and authority that extends beyond the artificial confines of the counties they are elected by.

You can't be a convicted felon and serve as a police officer, or sheriff's deputy, but we are willing to allow convicted felons to serve as sheriff?

11/1/2010 2:58:07 PM

It just seems to me that should be handled on a county by county basis, with minimum regulation from a state level. I get that the position is provided for in the state constitution, and because of that you have a valid point, but I'm more inclined to view it as a local office and because that's how I see it, that's also how I'd like to see any restrictions on who may run for that office.

11/1/2010 4:26:08 PM