Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote.

At this point, my opponent appears to have backed away from his original argument - that ex-cons should not be denied the vote (with no further qualifications on that), to expressing concern mostly about "permanent" disenfranchisement. He notes in his most recent argument: "For the record I support harsher punishment for crime. However, extending punishment beyond the sentence and probation to the point of potentially depriving a right for life does not have sufficient moral or constitutional justification in a free society." and "My opponent also contends that permanent disenfranchisement is the solution to prevent criminal influence in our elections." First of all, I said no such thing; I have not been arguing at all for "permanent" disenfranchisement, nor stated it as a "solution to prevent criminal influence in our elections." As I have pointed out consistently throughout this debate, the notion of "permanent" disenfranchisement is a red herring, a straw man. Even my opponent acknowledges that only three states still have disenfranchisement laws without a specific period after which the voting rights are automatically restored, and even in those three states (which together represent a mere 4.9% of the population of the U.S.), the franchise can be and often IS restored upon petition to the courts. It is certainly not unreasonable that the state require an individual who has in the past been convicted of major crimes to demonstrate a willingness to "play by the rules" before returning voting rights to them. And there's no need for "51% of the population to be ex-cons" in order for the state to have legitimate concerns about granting these people the right to vote; that is simply hyperbole on the part of my opponent. The question is whether or not they would constitute a sufficiently large voting block so as to affect the margin in a given vote, and whether or not an individual who has already demonstrated an unwillingness to act in the interests of society should be granted a role in running that society. The constitutionality of disenfranchisement laws is not at all in serious question, the opinions of a few fringe legal scholars notwithstanding. The important factor here is the existence of a very clear-cut Supreme Court decision on this very issue, and for those who wish to know the specifics of that opinion - which DID take into careful account the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment - a link to the full text of that decision has already been provided. Whether my opponent likes it or not, disenfranchisement HAS been determined to be constituional, and a valid part of the law of the land. With that said, I believe there is little additional ground that needs to be covered. It has been shown that denying the vote, temporarily, to convicted criminals is constituional, is in the interests of our society, and is rarely if ever truly "permanent" - and so hardly constitutes an undue burden on the population of ex-criminals. Again, if the right to vote was that valuable to them in the first place, they should not have made the CHOICE to violate the law. People who do this ARE criminals - we are not talking about taking away the rights of innocents here - and chose to follow a criminal path knowing full well the potential consequences of that choice. We need not have too much sympathy for them if they complain about those consequences afterwards.