Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote.

In this second round, my opponent has presented the following: 1. That permanent disenfranchisement is unconstitutional, 2. The question of whether society can "dictate the rights a person enjoys," and 3. The notion that continued disenfranchisement encourages ex-convicts to "remain on the fringes of society as second-class citizens," followed again by the assertion that "indefinite punishment" of this nature is unconstitutional. First, we should note that whether or not my opponent realizes it, the question of permanent or "indefinite" disenfranchisement is a red herring. Only three states currently have "permanent" disenfranchisement of convicted felons, and again even in those cases the ex-con retains the ability to recover the right to vote through petitioning the court, if they so choose. In all other states, the right to vote is returned to the ex-convict, typically automatically after a certain period of time has elapsed since completion of the sentence. However, even if the disenfranchisement were permanent in all states, it would definitely not be unconstitutional. As was noted in round 1, the Fourteenth Amendment clearly recognizes the rights of the states to deny convicted criminals the right to vote, implictly in the first section and explicitly in the second. Section 2 of this amendment was, in fact, the basis for the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in the case Richardson v. Ramirez, which dealt with precisely this issue. (The full text of the ruling may be found at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... The Fourteenth Amendment is widely recognized as affirming the constitutionality of state disenfranchisement laws by legal scholars across the nation; for example, the following comments from an article by Edward B. Foley, the Director of Election Law @ Moritz, and Douglas Dumolt, Class of 2006, Moritz School of Law at the Ohio State University: "This understanding also dovetailed with the U.S. Constitution's explicit recognition, in section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that states are permitted to disenfranchise felons if they wish." So it seems very clear - from opinions from the legal community, from simply reading the text of the 14th Amendment, and most importantly a Supreme Court ruling on this very question - that disenfranchisement laws ARE definitely constitutional. And note that there is no distinction in these opinions and rulings between those laws which "automatically" return the vote to the ex-convict, and those which my opponent would label as "permanent." So we now come to the "moral" question - can society "morally" deny any individual certain rights? We should recognize first that, in any practical sense, "rights" under the law derive solely from the so-called "contract with society" that each of us, as the members of that society, implicitly agree to. It certainly makes for good political rhetoric to speak of "inherent" and "inalienable" rights, but in practice we enjoy only those rights which society as a whole has agreed to defend on behalf of the individual. If you disagree, may I suggest that you visit any of a number of the other societies on Earth where certain of the rights we enjoy here are not so well-defended, and attempt to exercise them. In what sense of the word would, say, an individual living in Stalin's Soviet Union enjoy an "inalienable" right to free speech? So rights DO derive, in any practical sense, from the "contract with society." And here is a case where we are discussing the "rights" of individuals who have already, of their own free will, broken that contract by committing acts against other members of the society or the society as a whole. Rather than being concerned about the "morality" of denying certain rights to these individuals, should we not first discuss the morality of continuing to let them participate in the running of that society, given that they have already demonstrated their unwillingness to behave in that society's best interests? Society clearly has both the legal and the moral right - and in fact, the obligation - to disenfranchise convicted criminals, both as part of the punishment for their crimes and to protect itself from the potential consequences of permitting them to participate in the voting process. At the very least, this must be done until these individuals have demonstrated their willingness and ability to now "play by the rules" - and as was already noted, they have a path to recover their voting rights in each and every state of the union. Since the disenfranchisement is rarely "permanent" - and when it is, it is generally through the individual's inability to demonstrate that they ARE ready to again participate as full members of society - the question of this practice pushing these people to the "fringes of society" or making them "second-class citizens" is moot. If they are remaining on the "fringes," it is by their own choice - just as it was their choice to commit the crime which resulted in their disenfranchisment in the first place. Rights do not exist apart from responsibilities, and we are most definitely not talking about a case of the "big bad government" unfairly or unconstitutionally restricting the rights of some poor, innocent citizens. If you cannot live up to the responsibilities of citizenship, and you demonstrate this by committing criminal acts, then you shouldn't be surprised if certain of your "rights" are restricted or lost. This is in part to punish the criminal for their acts, but equally importantly it is to protect society from those who have clearly demonstrated inability or unwillingness to respect the rest of the society's members.