Should we revoke the voting rights from those who are active in HATE groups

[Baitball Blogger]

that are responsible for domestic terrorism?

[Orrex]

1. Revoke their citizenship and deport them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. It's unconstitutional unless they violate the law.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Isn't that what I said?

"responsible for domestic terrorism."

[yardwork]

47. If they are convicted of felonies they lose the right to vote.

Otherwise, no. It's unconstitutional to take away people's rights because they say hateful things. First amendment. I'm a fan of it.

Fight hate speech with better speech. Fight terrorist acts with the full weight of the law.

[Baitball Blogger]

68. The full weight of the law.

Let's agree on that point. Quick results just by putting this on law enforcement's front burner.

[Chemisse]

53. You said those who are in groups that are responsible for domestic terrorism.

An individual must break the law to have the rights revoked.

[lapucelle]

66. Actually, no. That's not what you said.

There are some people on this thread who need to learn the basics of how the constitution works.

[Baitball Blogger]

69. If they read the entire thread, they will.

I certainly learned to parse my words.

[Shell_Seas]

33. It's also unconstitutional to supress voters who are blakc, Hispanic, or poor....

That hasn't been stopping anyone, none the less.

[Baitball Blogger]

71. Oh, sure, come on this thread and point out the reality of the arbitrary way our

laws are enforced. Now you're really going to confuse everyone.

[leftofcool]

3. Will you revoke my right to vote because I hate Trump?

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Are you responsible for domestic terrorism?

[Weekend Warrior]

36. According to many of the alt-right...

Heather Meyer is a domestic terrorist. And these people have the support of the President.

[Baitball Blogger]

41. Our one saving grace is that it seems like politicians and public officials are

opposed to Trump's weak stance. That's probably because they're the ones that have to enforce law and order. And it just appears to me that we have the moral high ground on this one.

[Weekend Warrior]

51. Agree. In this thought experiment my concern is....

If this country were to allow Trump to become President. He might even appoint someone like Sessions as head of the DOJ.

[JoeStuckInOH]

4. Can't legally remove rights without due process.

Also, that's a monumentally dumb suggestion to make while Repubs have control of the Whitehouse, senate, House, and SCOTUS. They'd be the ones that get to decide what's a "Hate Group".

Don't worry though... it's pretty early and I'm sure there will be plenty of worse ideas that are hatched today.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Does no one read a full post before responding?

"responsible for domestic terrorism."

[JoeStuckInOH]

14. Does no one read the constitution? Still can't do it without due process.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. We'll see if this escalates under Trump's leadership.

If it does, I am all for expediting due process. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Ms. Toad]

29. You can't "expedite" due process by skipping the critical step

of prosecuting for any actual crimes committed without violating due process.

And no, to answer an earlier question - it is NOT a felony to be active in a group that is responsible for domestic terrorism. There's that pesky first amendment that gets in the way of guilt by association. You actually have to prove that the individual was responsible for the terrorism, or actively engaged in the process (conspiracy, complicity, attempt). Once they are convicted, assuming the crime is a felony, most states remove the right to vote - at least until the punishment is completed.

Finding guilt by mere association is a violation of the first amendment; removing voting rights for mere association is a step removed from that (and a separate constitutional violation). You're digging a deeper constitutional hole.

[Baitball Blogger]

34. I can abide by that.

And, I assume that we (our country) will use your view as a guideline unless this escalates and the governors need more tools to fight against a menace that Trump is empowering.

[Ms. Toad]

38. It's not my view, it's the law, as embodied in the constitution.

And escalation is irrelevant to what the constitution requires. You cannot remove voting rights based on presumed guilt by association, for acts of the group being associated with.

[Baitball Blogger]

43. But there is a thing called "public safety" that makes policy less static.

[yardwork]

49. You're suggesting suspending constitutional rights and martial law.

Bad idea. We have laws. They need to be enforced.

[Baitball Blogger]

60. I'm sure there will be a clever lawyer who can come up with some legal reasoning to justify a

stronger response.

There always is.

It is just funny how Democrats and Left organizations have always been on the receiving end of increased law enforcement response. So, as sad as that might be, there is precedent.

[Squinch]

5. No. We should arrest them the minute they break the law.

[eShirl]

6. Just incarcerate them for the crimes they get caught committing.

[oberliner]

7. Good lord - you can't be serious

Have you read the Constitution?

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Did you read my post?

Should we revoke the voting rights from those who are active in HATE groups
that are responsible for domestic terrorism?

[WinkyDink]

8. Sure! Why not?! Maybe Dubya was right about the Constitution!

Maybe it IS just "a goddamned piece of paper"!

[Baitball Blogger]

13. So, someone who is responsible for domestic terrorism should retain their right to vote?

I imagine it's a felony, so it's a given that they will lose their rights. Correct?

[Thinkingabout]

16. Unless a citizen has violated laws which results in the inability to vote we should not

Deny the right to vote. Voting is so very important, can you imagine Republicans creating laws with made up reasons why Democrats can not vote, They could say just because we are Democrats is reason enough to deny our right to vote. BTW, in no way shape or form do I support white nationalists.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. Your response is a good one.

I surmise that if these events escalate under Trump's administration, and there are more Heather Heyers, we just might be revisiting this issue.

[sarisataka]

18. On what grounds?

[BainsBane]

19. Rather than coming up with ways to violate the First Amendment

How about people reflect on what they can do to stop making excuses for these people, to stop pretending they are just misunderstood, that they aren't really racist but care about TPP and corporatism? Seems to me if people did more of that, we might not have a White Supremacist in the White House to begin with.

These are the people we were told we needed to reach out to. Think on that a bit. How about we all think about what we may have said and done to minimize racism in an effort to promote a political agenda or faction?

[Baitball Blogger]

23. I think you are on the right track.

We need more tools to handle this.

[yardwork]

52. We need people to vote for Democrats.

Too many people allowed Trump to be elected because they "didn't feel inspired by" the Democratic nominee.

Now those same folks are horrified that Nazis feel empowered by the president who openly espoused their ideology during his campaign. The solution to this problem is not to abandon our Constitution.

Get out the vote.

[NurseJackie]

20. Define "active". Are you referring only to those who perpetrate the "domestic terrorism"? Or...

... does it also include "dues paying" members who are "active in the hate group" but who are content to sit-at-home and read the newsletter, fly the flag, wear the t-shirt, and emblazon the bumper sticker?

What level of "activity" would qualify someone to forfeit their rights?

Who decides?

[Baitball Blogger]

24. Active: Holding tiki torches to shout hate speech, kicking people who are on the ground,

arriving with the intention to create physical damage.

[NurseJackie]

30. You're being very vague. Please explain: at what point do they lose their rights? Is it...

... when they arrive wearing a particular style of clothing? Or...
... because they held tiki torches and chanted? Or...
... because a designated mind-reader has determined that they have evil intentions? Or...
... is it when they're arrested for actually perpetrating violent and destructive acts?

And even then, what about due process?

How does this fit-in with our nation's constitutional protections, and how do we guarantee that these tactics won't be used against groups (and individuals) with which (and with whom) we agree?

I get the anger and rage that you're feeling and expressing. I'm sure it's a satisfying fantasy, but your proposed solution doesn't really fit well with our established laws and constitutional protections. It's an impulsive reaction that I'd expect from Cersei Lannister.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. I think we are now at the level of this discussion where the only option is to

get them to the point of conviction, where, as a convicted felon, they lose their voting rights.

To add to that, I believe the benchmark for what qualifies as "active" will be in direct proportion to the potential future escalation of frequency and violence.

In other words, if Trump's veiled support of these groups embolden them and their mission becomes more violent, I forsee that they will be actively sought out based on the street photographs that prove they were there when the violence began.

[Ms. Toad]

42. Being present when the violence began,

without proving their intent to participate in the violence, is a violation of both the 1st amendment (freedom of association) and the 5th amendment (due process requires establishing each element of the crime alleged).

Using street photographs to identify is fine (no expectation of privacy in public spaces). But you can't use a photograph that merely proves presence to establish what was in their mind (mens rea). Unless you establish the mens rea necessary for the particular criminal conviction, you cannot convict them.

[Baitball Blogger]

44. We shall see what happens, if this situation escalates.

Those photos will certainly get them on the board.

[NurseJackie]

48. I don't follow.

To add to that, I believe the benchmark for what qualifies as "active" will be in direct proportion to the potential future escalation of frequency and violence.

What? (Seriously... WHAT?!)

In other words, if Trump's veiled support of these groups embolden them and their mission becomes more violent, I forsee that they will be actively sought out based on the street photographs that prove they were there when the violence began.

Huh? It's my understanding that the phrase "in other words" is generally used to preface that you're about to elaborate or clarify something that was previously stated. However, in this instance you've done neither. This awkward wording just adds to the confusion and disarray.

Perhaps "by the way" would have worked better than "in other words".

[Baitball Blogger]

59. Think "public safety." If public safety is threatened by future escalation, there will be increased

response from law enforcement agencies. That is how our country has worked since forever, especially where it comes to terrorism. Just think about what precipitated the removal of shoes at airport check-ins. It required someone who tried to light a shoe bomb on a plane before we responded with "new rules."

In other words, if theses protests escalate, expect a tougher response from law enforcement, because they will cross the line that threatens public safety.

[yardwork]

61. Your assumption that this stronger response will benefit us is naive, imo.

The Republicans control all branches of government. Any suspension of constitutional rights will be used against progressives.

It's called martial law. It's never a force for good.

[Baitball Blogger]

65. These responses have historically gone against progressives, this is true.

But now it will be difficult not to use the responses that have passed the constitutional tests against the White Supremacist, Trump supporters who want to escalate the situation.

Just by making these organizations a priority on the law enforcement agenda, we have a huge win. You don't have to resort to hyperbolic martial law to wipe every solution off the table.

[NurseJackie]

63. Changing the subject and deflecting. None of the things you're now saying...

... pertain to the premise of your original post.

[Ms. Toad]

21. Just think, it was only a couple of days ago

That I was scolded for suggesting that we needed to clean up our own house, before being too critical about Republicans ignorance of the Constitution , or their willingness to trash it to achieve a political goal. Guess I was wrong after all.

Please retract this dangerous suggestion.

[Baitball Blogger]

25. There is nothing to retract.

This is a discussion board and we are discussing a current issue. A few people are responding with reasonable options that I believe you would embrace. I know that I find value in their responses.

[Ms. Toad]

31. If you want to continue to look as goofy as the Republicans

who were promptly and appropriately ridiculed here for largely answering a poll asking if the next election should be delayed until after the conclusion of the investigation into voting fraud, be my guest.

I just don't think it is appropriate to be advocating on DU for the violation of the constitution for political gain. Judging from the responses in this thread - it's pretty clear I'm not alone.

[Baitball Blogger]

40. I don't disagree with you regarding following constitutional tenets.

I just see a situation that may escalate because this president hasn't disavowed their purpose. And, if that happens, you have a real threat to public safety. And, when that happens, the hate organizations will probably get the full attention of our law enforcement agencies. What does that mean? Due process will be expedited because those cases will get on the dockets quicker.

[Ms. Toad]

46. Now you're talking about the 6th amendment (right to a speedy trial), not due process.

As long as promptly processing the cases through the system respects the rules that grant each side certain times to respond, and does not result in the delay of other trials past the constitutional limits, you aren't suggesting anything that doesn't already happen (so why talk about it).

To the extent you are talking about altering either of the two (the accused's timeline, or other accused's right to a speedy trial), you're back to violating the constitution. The former form of "expedited" due process is a violation of due process. The latter is a violatino of other accused's constitutional rights t.o a speedy trial

[Baitball Blogger]

57. Why are you resisting a conversation that is an opportunity to educate?

Even I have honed my thinking on this matter. Do you seriously believe that there are others who couldn't use the refresher?

[NotASurfer]

22. After adding the words "convicted felon" to their police record

Yes.

Odds that the Feds will treat these groups like the interstate crime syndicates they are ain't great without regime change.

So regime change is the first order of business.

Then we run people for office at every level who pledge to make "convicted felon" happen

[Baitball Blogger]

26. Agree.

The one thing I would like to see is a much swifter process to get them to "convicted felon" status.

[yardwork]

55. What, specifically, do you suggest?

[Baitball Blogger]

62. Move swiftly, based on photographic evidence, for instance.

Increase staff to follow these organizations. Clear the dockets to give them their day in court - quicker.

We have precedent for all of this. And all of it is legal.

[yardwork]

64. Jeff Sessions ain't gonna do that for us. Elect Democrats next time.

[Sanity Claws]

27. If they are felons, their voting rights

Are revoked.

[Baitball Blogger]

28. Correct.

At this point, the only tool in the belt is expediting the process that will get them there.

[Chemisse]

56. Knee-jerk law making to address a specific circumstance is usually a bad idea.

Our current laws are adequate to address this.

[Alpeduez21]

32. If perpetrators of "domestic violence"

are prosecuted and found guilty that will most likely result in a felony conviction of a violent crime.

That will take away the right to vote. Problem solved.

Sorry sanity, looks like we were typing at the same time-ish

[roamer65]

35. I do think they need to be identified and tracked.

They are no different than foreign agents.

They are enemies of the American republic.

[Johnny2X2X]

39. No

Everyone should get to vote. Even convicted felons should be allowed to vote.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. Makes a lot more sense

than refusing to allow people whom are felons from voting (or having to jump through a zillion hoops to "get their rights back" ).

[Lee-Lee]

50. And right now Trump and Sessions would decide who that is....

Thing about what the implications are before you propose these ideas....

[jmg257]

54. Only if they are specifically convicted of committing said felonies.

Maybe they should lose their gun rights too - probably scare them more.

[Not Ruth]

58. That is a slippery slope

[mythology]

67. What a horrible idea

Fortunately this idea can't come to pass legally.

[B2G]

70. No.

If they commit violence and are charged with felonies, that is covered already.

[Gothmog]

72. The GOP is the party of voter suppression

We should not use their tactics

[Not Ruth]

73. Is the DOJ implementing their version of your plan?

They are pulling details on everyone that visited the Antifa website.

Thought crimes are up for investigation?

https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/we-fight-for-the-users/

[Voltaire2]

74. uh no you cannot revoke voting rights because of a person's political opinions.

Have you actually thought about this?