Definition of “put to the lie”
To refute or counter something; to show something to be incorrect or false.
There’s nothing in the definition of this phrase that indicates one is accusing someone of lying.
Hence the reason it is still there.
My main point here is that the OP title and point was wrong.
Neither the Supreme Court nor the 11th Circuit “stopped” anybody from voting in Florida. They merely remained faithful to the plain as day language of Florida Amendment 4. The drafters of the Amendment were simply sloppy. If they had wished to exclude fines, costs and restitution as a requirement, they should have specifically stated so in the Amendment.
To the contrary, the Amendment specifies ALL TERMS OF SENTENCE must be fulfilled. The Florida Legislature was 100% faithful to the Amendment.
Constitutionally and legally, I must agree with the Judgement of the 11th Circuit and Supreme Court. They comport with the plain language of the Amendment.
Now, stepping back from the legalities of the situation.
I personally would support allowing for the restoration of the right to vote, when the defendant is making good faith progress on his legal obligations but has not paid them outright. If a defendant is indigent and can’t pay at all, I would allow him to vote. If a defendant is poor, but can pay even a minimal amount ($5.00 a month), I would allow him to vote if he makes minimal payments in good faith, in relation to his income.
On the other hand, if he is a Roger Stone, Jeffrey Epstein, etc, (in other words fully capable of paying his obligations) then I would require 100% satisfaction of all legal obligations prior to registering to vote.
3 Likes
Good post. I like your plan.
“I can put sumpin’ on it.”
while you libs are bitching about this…would you agree once they pay their debt to society…yes that include reparations fines etc…should their second amendment also be restored?
2 Likes
Should I get my guns back before I’ve paid my fines?
1 Like
Yes they should!
1 Like
Stop reading my mind.
1 Like
Are you advocating two tier justice system?
If you’re allowed to vote you’re also allowed to have guns. No exceptions.
I have not mentioned guns in this thread at all.
Perhaps you are thinking of another poster.
1 Like
Depending on crime. They shouldn’t be taking guns away because someone failed to pay their traffic ticket. Now arm robbery is another, And answer to that IMO is no. But once debt to society is repaid all your rights are restored…even any confiscated guns.
Edit to add…I hope that makes sense.
No…but it’s about restoring your individual rights. People shouldn’t have option to choose what rights one get back.
1 Like
yes…
Absolutely. They have paid their debt to society.
The whole idea of a prison sentence is to punish you for a crime that was committed. Once someone has completed their sentence etc then they should be free and clear.
Should prior convictions be a consideration when sentencing the current crime?
1 Like
I agree…but they also need to pay ALL their debt to society. They cannot pick and chose which ones just like they cannot chose which rights get restored.
Interesting…haven’t given that much thought.
I would like to say no…it should be based off present crime committed.
But in words of Great Hillary Clinton…some people just aren’t redeemable.
Final Arbiters have spoken
Absolutely.
A guy with 6 prior felony convictions should get a stiffer sentence then the dude who just committed his first felony.
If the state didn’t keep track of what was actually owed, how can they claim the person hasn’t completed all the terms of his sentence?
1 Like
