So voting in theory is a fundamental human right and it should be the right of everyone by default.
Unless, of course, one has been found guilty of offenses
increasingly deemed felonious of course, even after ones
debt to society has been met.
I wonder if there's any
disparate impact in such a policy?
So, how is it that when a majority votes, the minority can be
entitled a mullugan, and the democratically passed "rule" can be not only nullified, but found in favor for the minority by
interpretation of judges?
That applies to both conservatives and liberals, whether they threaten to riot in the streets or not, right?
Take the "equality" of Title IX for example...
Take the "equality" in claims of "domestic" violence...
Take the "equality' of "free"
medical considerations...
Yet, to SOME, apparently,
other-than-Democrat/liberal/"educated" stay-at-home moms (we used to call them housewives and/or home makers) aren't worthy of an opinion, because THEY "Haven't worked a day in their lives...".
I Guess, to SOME, THEY haven't EARNED the right to "vote".
Yet a single, women's studies graduate "community activist", loaded in (questionable) academic/credit card debt, has?
Make no mistake. to SOME, the same thinking applies to (ie.)the homeless vs. "lettered" males.