Unconstitutional – VOTEing rights.
The way I am reading the Constitution I do not see why EX-Convicts cannot vote right away. Do I agree with this. No. But it is the way the U.S. Constitution reads. Please advise if I am wrong.
Article XIV, Section 1.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United State and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article XV, Section 1.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Previous condition of servitude here means incarcerated. See Article XIII Section 1. I would interpret this to mean while in the slammer and also under house arrest and also while under parole.
Article XXIV, Section 1
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the Untied States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
My question on this is the questioning of what a tax is. If a tax is someone having to pay restitution then having to pay restitution prior to having your voting rights restored would be unconstitutional by definition.
Article XIII, Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly conviced, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.
This define what involuntary servitude is supposed to mean in todays terms since it was more extension back in the writting of the Constitution.
So for my conclusion. I have the definition as from the Constitution as to how long the condition of servitude is supposed to last which is until the end of parole. Article XV, Section 1 also limits restrictions on voting to not be denied because of previous condition of servitude.
If one would complain about this then in the States the condition of restitution can still be maintained but a different and separate role for voting of U.S. candidates must be upheld. If “other tax” is not interpreted as from above then this condition must be changed because it directly includes States in the requirement of conditions.
Is this just politics or what. Is this a sign of the times to reject the Constitution of is this country acting like a Democracy and not like a Republic which it is “guaranteed” to act like as per the Constitution.
Or is the only solution to Impeach the President so this can be enforced by the next President. A softer approach would be for the Attorney General of the U.S. and the several States to enforce this provision by demanding the President and respective Governors to call the Congress or Legislature back to enforce this provision in the Constitution. The President could enforce this without the Legislatures by the State Executive changing the provision. But it would be less of a headache if the Legislatures are called back into session.
See also I-1043