Reply #2: eh? [View All]

[iverglas]

Cue Iverglas, champion of those who have suffered from Civic Death.

Denying someone the exercise of a right is not the same as taking the right away from them.

Taking rights away from people (which simply makes no sense, when fundamental / human rights are in issue, which they aren't here anyway, since they are supposed to be unalienable) is the essence of civil death. Not civic death.

The present US SC decision actually has nothing to do with that issue. It has to do with the interpretation of legislation that denies the exercise of a right.

The denial, in my own humble opinion, is sufficiently specific to pass constitutional scrutiny. It is clearly related to the goal -- to reduce "domestic violence" (a concept in need of a new name), not overbroad, not excessive, etc.

It is the blanket prohibition that comes with conviction for any felony that, in my own humble opinion, would not pass constitutional scrutiny where I'm at. Of course, there is no such blanket prohibition where I'm at.

Disenfranchisement based on status as "a felon" is a rather better example of an element of civil death.