Can a convicted Felon lose the Right to vote?

Crystal Mason was sentenced to 5 years in prison for illegally voting in the 2016 presidential election. Her attorneys will take the case before the Texas Court of Appeals and argue that she was wrongfully convicted and ask for a new trial. If the judges reject her request she will go to the State's highest Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Dallas Morning News had an article "Can felons vote in Texas? Sometimes" by reporter Jennifer Emily, which revealed the oftentimes arbitrary and inconsistent conditions or requirements which have to met in order for a felon to be "eligible" to vote; which is NOT necessarily the same thing as casting a vote on the ballot box.

Felons who pay their debt to society (probation, pardon, complete their sentence of incarceration) can register to vote but can't merely show up at a voting booth; they have to re-register?? Someone with a "final conviction" cannot even register to vote, so what exactly is that? Here is what it is NOT: a conviction on appeal; an indictment or merely prosecution for a crime; deferred adjudication (a type of probation that avoids a conviction if the person completes the terms required. Clear as glass; right!

Crystal Mason was already on probation from a federal tax fraud charge, and in addition to her case, the state of North Carolina convicted two felons who voted illegally; which brings up an important constitutional question: Can a Right guaranteed by the Constitution be revoked or diminished?

In Article 6, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) it stipulates that the Constitution is the Supreme "Law of the Land" and the 15th Amendment Section 1 says: "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." Look up the word "abridged" in it's legal context. Also, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 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.

So, when does committing a criminal act and labeled a felon deprive a person the Right guaranteed to them as a citizen? Once a Right is given it CANNOT be revoked under the Constitution. The State, or ANY jurisdiction, including Congress, cannot annul the privileges and immunities granted under the U.S. Constitution. It is quite surprising to me that such abuses have not been challenged in the Supreme Court or that the nation's highest judiciary would approve conduct which offends the Constitution.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 15, 2019
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
  

Wading into the murky same-sex marriage waters

It is difficult to weight into the debate over same-sex marriage without being accused of bigotry or hatred against homosexuals, especially if your views are rejected by those of the GLBT community and their defenders; but couldn’t the shoe fit on the other foot as well? I mean, gay people and their supporters can be just as vitriolic, disrespectful, aggressive, threatening, and prone to violence as their opponents. Setting aside for the moment, all the emotion and name-calling by both sides and taking a deep breath with a fresh air of ‘perspective’ might help to diffuse the explosive nature of this cultural time bomb. For starters, both sides are right and wrong and should admit culpability in polarizing segments of society to further advance their own particular self-interest. The Christian community and their political surrogates want to use the Bible to impose religious standards into civil law; especially it seems by selecting certain passages from the Old Testament (Genesis and Leviticus) as well as the New Testament (Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Jude). The thing is though; the Bible has a lot more to say about fornication and harlotry/prostitution that it does homosexuality (the word is not even a Bible term). So why aren’t Bible-toting believers railing against sexual exploitation (especially of the youth and women), voyeurism, prostitution,  pedophilia,  pornography,  nudity or adult-themed clubs/bars, magazines, television shows, and in movies as well as the pandering sales of erotic merchandise (sex toys and lingerie). Perhaps religious groups are actively involved in protesting against these offenders but it seems that their voices are the loudest or heard the most often when it pertains to same-sex relations; except maybe in the case of opposing the practice of abortion.

Now, the supporters of same-sex marriage make an appeal to history, archaeology or cultural anthropology to prove that homosexuality, or rather that relationships between members of the same sex/gender is not uncommon or an aberration because ancient civilizations have left behind ample records of such experiences. While that may very well be true, and doubtless one of more famous Greek philosophers in times past might have been involved with a male (“catamite”) to service his needs, or even among some modern Native American or African tribes such practices have doubtless been performed, still one has to ask if these groups or any society recognized, legitimized or promoted same-sex or gender neutral “marriage” as the term is employed today? In the case of Greek society in the time of Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato it would be quite plausible to believe that one of the great thinkers of the age could have had a male lover/servant (slave) who resided with his employer. I suppose that the person could be included in a will by their benefactor and legally inherit property but that doesn’t constitute conveyance of marital privileges or rights. In tribal societies there could have been a more presumably egalitarian social structure where gender identity was not limited to a strictly ‘binary’ construct of male/female; biologically speaking. There could  be male, female, feminine male, or masculine female and within each distinctive group, rankings and privileges according to the needs, rules and customs of the people in that communal group. I think in many if not most of the cases, the male person had what was called “two spirits”(masculine/feminine or androgynous) and was seen more or less as a ‘special’ gift that was conveyed upon a shaman/priest/witchdoctor that was chosen to be in contact with the unseen supernatural world (ancestor spirits, animal spirits, gods [good/evil]). This person would be revered or feared and as a result due in part of his/her ‘peculiar’ nature, could have and enjoy the use of a same-sex male/male domestic relationship [variable or temporary/permanent].

The question to be asked is whether in ‘any’ previous human community, tribe, clan, society, culture, city-state, nation, or empire was there ever such as thing as the consummation of marriage that involved a same-sex couple (male/male or female/female)? Not only that, but even among the people who had such relations were those who engaged in this lifestyle were they a tiny minority or a significant part of the population? I mean, if it was normative then they would have constituted a larger part of the social environment; and did they, or do we/can we know for sure? I know I am getting into hot water here but I have to chance it- but what about conjugal privilege and procreation? This last part serves as a perfect segue into one of the most divisive parts of the entire argument, namely the ‘sexuality’ component. The religionists, moralists and social conservatives place too much emphasis on public displays of affection (PDA) among gay couples and what they do or how they do what they do behind closed doors. On the other hand, to disagree with my gay friends, there is no “equivalent” or “sameness” in what a man and woman do in romantic coupling in comparison to that of man/man or woman/woman intimate sexual contact. I believe the “only” thing that is not different between a heterosexual and homosexual couple is when it pertains to L-O-V-E, because it has no boundaries or limitations based on gender, sex, social rules, legal regulations, etc.

Lastly, I sympathize with a gay couple who want the religious sanction or sacrament of marriage just as much as certain legal rights upon receiving a marriage certificate issued by the state conveying such privileges authorized by law (state and federal). Just as marriage is more than procreation it has its socio-cultural historical significance and importance in religious ceremony and ritual as solemnizing the male/female pair as husband and wife, bride and groom; or using other such endearing terms and associational cognates. There is something special about that pronouncement and I don’t know if it can be replicated in invoking the wishes or goodwill upon a same-sex couple as spouse and spouse or just calling them as simply, ‘married.’ Another thorny issue is when gay couples adopt children, and because this is relatively new there are no longitudinal studies to determine the impact on young minds from being reared in same-sex households. How would a male be affected by two male parents where he would refer to both men as his father? How would a female react in the same situation and is she affected differently, especially if she were the boy’s sister? Conversely, how would a female be affected by having two moms; what about a male; or what if they were both raised by the women parents and is the girl going to be affected differently than her brother?

These are open-ended questions and concerns that Social Psychologists, Pediatricians, the AMA, ASCP, Congress, the Supreme Court, state legislatures and religious scholars may be woefully unable to answer, but the one thing is certain is that when we shout so loud as to drown out the other’s voice, while at the same time plugging up our own ears we will never be able to clearly and unbiasedly consider alternative points of view; but then again, maybe this was the goal all along.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 8, 2014
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Response to "The Mueller Report" by Alan Dershowitz

Famed Harvard professor and part of O.J. Simpson's Murder Trial "Dream Team" appeared on ABC's "The View" on May 2, 2019 to promote his book, "The Mueller Report." In an excerpt in Section D. The Report: Obstruction of Justice Dershowitz sets out to explain the elements of a crime, where every crime requires both an actus reus (a criminal act) and a mens rea (an unlawful; a corrupt intent). He goes on to say that you must first establish an illegal act. The ancient principle of nulla poena sine lege means that no one can be punished for doing an act that is not prohibited by law. However, an act might not be unlawful but it does not necessarily make it lawful.

Applying the principle of Obstruction of Justice, president Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey leads to the question of exercising the authority of the Chief Executive under Article II of the Constitution. Dershowitz doesn't believe that the motive or intent in doing so matters; ONLY the fact that he can. President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinburger as an example, but it doesn't seem to apply in this particular case to me. Dershowitz contends that Mueller misinterpreted Constitutional Law in a section entitled: Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice where Mueller stated that the first element of obstruction is "an obstructive act." Perhaps Alan Dershowitz should have familiarized himself with 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which states:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

This statute refers to the act; without consideration to intent. Continuing further in his copied excerpt; Dershowitz says: The [Mueller] report cites a handful of lower-court cases, all wrongly decided in my view, for the proposition that “an improper motive can render an actor’s conduct criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor’s authority.” (Disclaimer: I litigated one of those cases.) This wrongheaded conclusion contradicts hundreds of years of precedents requiring that the act itself must be unlawful -- the concept of actus rea discussed above -- and that an improper motive cannot convert a lawful act into a crime.

The Mueller Report correctly concludes that there are no Supreme Court decisions or even Department of Justice positions that directly resolve the issue of whether “the president’s exercises of his constitutional authority to terminate an FBI director and to close investigations” can constitutionally constitute an obstruction of justice. In every case this is true and there is the standing DOJ guidelines against bringing charges against a president while in office. However, if the president is the "subject" of the investigation can he use the power of his office to terminate that investigation; to infect or undermine its legitimacy and legality? Dershowitz completely misses the point, or is he trying misdirection or obfuscation by continually referring to the broader issue of presidential authority to fire someone as opposed to the narrow and specific 'act' done, not as a matter of prerogative or discretion, but as a means to subvert a legitimate investigation into whether president Trump violated federal law; or encouraged others to do so, such as lying to the FBI or Congress.

Dershowitz continues in this copied excerpt: The Mueller Report seems to agree, saying that “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence. . . .” But that is not what President Trump has been accused of by the Mueller Report. What he is accused of -- especially in firing Comey -- is far more analogous to the pardoning decision made by President Bush. This is also not correct because, whether Mueller mentioned it or not, the statements by Trump himself based on the
following:

President Trump had or placed 2 telephone calls to FBI Director James Comey on March 30 and April 11, where he mentioned that the Russia investigation was “a cloud that was impairing his ability as president” and that he wanted him to “lift the cloud.” On May 11, 2017 Trump, in an interview with Lester Holt of NBC News, says he had already decided to fire Comey before receiving Rosenstein's recommendation. "Regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey," Trump tells NBC. Trump also says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he made the decision. "When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

Dershowitz concludes by saying as a civil libertarian who cares deeply about the fair application of the rule of law to all, I have tried to apply neutral, nonpartisan principles to my analysis of the legal and civil liberties issues surrounding this investigation. I have refused to substitute partisan wishful thinking for neutral analysis of the law and facts. I have refused to substitute partisan wishful thinking for neutral analysis of the law and facts. I think that Law professor and Attorney Dershowitz is not as impartial as he claims and ignores a pattern of behavior based on actions and statements by president Trump that meets the 'reasonableness' threshold that supports a violation of federal law. Even the encouragement of others to commit illegal acts, regardless of whether they did or not, constitutes "intent." The notion that the Mueller Report totally exonerates president Trump is nonsense. The ONLY thing that it concludes is that Trump cannot be proven guilty of Collusion; which is NOT a crime in the legal sense of the word. What is concerning is that Mueller DID find over 10 instances of 'potential' Obstruction of Justice incidents, which he left it up to Congress to decide what to do. 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

May 2, 2019

robertrandle51@yahoo.com