Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished.

First and foremost, the rights given to the citizens of the United States are not explicitly "natural rights". That is, the constitution does not respect natural rights above law. This is evidenced by the fact that there are limitations to the practice of our freedom, most of which are sacrifices made willingly in order to protect society. While we as the citizenry may speak of natural rights since our country was founded on related philosophies, my opponent cannot simply assume that this philosophy can overrule American law. If my opponent wishes to argue that the disenfranchisement of ex-felons violates natural human rights, my opponent must first explain as an introductory note, why the philosophy of natural rights should supercede that of American Law, which includes modifiers to the "natural right" philosophy intended to offer security in exchange for some freedom. While it is convenient to speak of natural rights as what should be the ultimate good, my opponent has not set forth any argument saying that this philosophy of "natural rights" holds any weight. He simply assumes that this arbitrary moral code should be the basis for what is deemed right and wrong. However, let us assume that my opponent's notion of "natural rights" as the basis for morality is accepted, just for the purposes of this introductory round. My opponent argues that all citizens, ex-felons included, have the natural right to vote. Do they not also have the right to escape incarceration? What natural law, carved upon a large rock or tree, states that men have the right to vote, but not the right to deny people the ability to throw him in a jail cell for his actions? Where is the basis for these assumptions? And even if my opponent can reconcile these two points, there is another issue that must be resolved. My opponent's main argument is the notion that after a prisoner is released, he has served his punishment and thus, deserves all the rights he lost while incarcerated. Sex offenders, by law, are required to live a very restricted life once they are convicted. See Megan's Law: . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...'s+Law Under my opponent's argument, convicted sex offenders, once released from prison, should be able to freely move to a different neighborhood and practice as a babysitter, daycare operator, dance instructor, masseuse, etc. without ever telling his new neighbors what had happened before. Should this be allowed? Should we tear down the registry of sex offenders just because it violates my opponent's description of natural rights? The answer is no, because the laws that withhold the rights of felons after their release, much like Megan's Law, are essentially part of the penalty for their crime. There is nothing in law limiting the types of punishment issued by the court solely to incarceration. Release of a convict from jail indicates nothing about the crime being wiped away, only that the incarceration part of the punishment is over. As such, this is absolutely not a violation of natural rights unless my opponent is willing to argue that every form of punishment is a violation of natural rights. Thank you, I await my opponent's response.