Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote.

I have indirectly pointed towards these three states which my opponent mentioned, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia that support permanent disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court case that my opponent mentions is Richardson v. Ramirez. This is a case originating in California, which specified that convict shall have their right to vote restored by the court after the service of probation. This is hardly permanent disenfranchisement. The case dealt simply with the constitutionality of the statute at hand, one that dealt with temporary disenfranchisement. I refute my opponent's claim that "The Fourteenth Amendment is widely recognized as affirming the constitutionality of state disenfranchisement laws by legal scholars across the nation..." Gabriel L. Chin of the University of Arizona Law School agrees that a reassement of the 2nd section of the 14th Amendment is in order and is also of dubious constitutionality due to that particular section's involvement with Reconstruction after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment deals specifically with "rebellion, and other crimes", considering rebellion can only be committed against the Federal government due to the position of sovereignty "other crimes" can be argued to be applicable to the Federal government versus the states. As a citation: Chin, Gabriel J., "Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment?" . Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 92, p. 259, 2004 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com... or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.433580 I would disagree with my opponent on the concept that the individual rights derive from the contract with society. All persons have the right to exercise these rights until they interfere with the rights of others. At this point the contract is broken and the violator in question is punished on the basis of breaking this contract. Your rights cannot be protected while you infringe on the rights of others. However, after your punishment is served society is not holding up it's part of the bargain if your full rights are not restored. My opponent also contends that permanent disenfranchisement is the solution to prevent criminal influence in our elections. First, ex -cons do not make up 51% of the population. The "potential consequences of permitting them to participate in the voting process" are going to be exactly what. In that states that do not disenfranchise ex-cons or have limited disenfranchisement I have not seen any evidence of a criminal take over of the government. My opponent and I agree on many issues. 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. A free society must protect those rights which make it free. While free speech and freedom of religion are certainly fundamental how can the citizens of any democracy secure these rights without the right to vote? Participation in government is a fundamental guarantee of the Constitution. To abridge this right on the basis of a previous condition is not consistent with the tradition of rights we hold so dearly in this nation. Thank you sir for this debate! You have forced me to seriously consider my position on this issue. If you would like to open debate on another topic it would be my pleasure to argue with an opponent of your skill.