James Joyner argues "Bernie Sanders' Rights Talk is Nonsense on Stilts," echoing Bentham: While I likely disagree with Sanders on how to implement these policies, we’re in agreement that human beings—particularly in a society as wealthy as ours—deserve to live in reasonable comfort and dignity. And, while we may differ on where one draws the line, we’re certainly in agreement that decent housing, education, healthcare, and employment are part of that. Where we disagree is on the notion that these things are somehow “rights.” In the tradition of the Enlightenment, out of which our own Declaration of Independence sprang, rights are almost always negative. The government may deprive us of life or liberty only under certain preset conditions after application of agreed-upon processes. We’re entitled to “the pursuit of happiness” without interference from government; we’re not entitled to happiness itself. Similarly, the government isn’t allowed to infringe upon our speech, worship, expression, and so forth. Our rights are almost all simply listings of things the government may not restrict or may restrict only under certain conditions. Offhand, the only positive right I can think of in the Constitution is the right to have “the assistance of counsel” found in the 6th Amendment and later incorporated via the 14th. While it was initially narrowly construed—the government couldn’t prevent people from hiring an attorney—it gradually evolved into a right for one provided by the government, at least for indigent persons, when facing criminal penalty. Still, while this is a positive right—in the sense that government is providing a benefit rather than simply refraining from taking an infringing action—it stems from a negative right—preventing the government from denying life or liberty without due process. It’s simply understood that the law is sufficiently complex that a citizen without access to an attorney is at such a huge disadvantage in court against the government. Sanders’ proposed rights are all positive. And this is problematic. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bernie-sanders-rights-talk-is-nonsense-on-stilts
It’s an interesting observation but is largely irrelevant. I have serious issues with Bernie Sanders but the fact that his proposed rights are positive isn’t one of them.
Bernie's position on voting rights for imprisoned felons labeled potentially "campaign-killing": Yesterday Bernie Sanders responded to a question at a CNN town hall event in Manchester NH noting all felons — even those currently incarcerated — should be allowed to vote. It’s almost like he’s trying to kill his campaign in the crib. A week after the sixth anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, Sanders implied that even the surviving marathon bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, currently on federal death row at the Florence, Colorado federal Supermax prison for his role in the terrorist attack, should retain his right to vote. Restoration of felons’ voting rights has gained traction lately, though the states are far apart on their approaches to restoration of rights. In Sanders’ home state of Vermont, felons don’t lose rights even when incarcerated, likely a product of a unique political culture of a state whose motto, Freedom and Unity, hints at the balance between the individual liberty of the person and the collective needs of the state. All 50 states and DC allow preservation or restoration of felons’ voting rights, and differ largely on when restoration can occur, and whether restoration is automatic, or requires the fulfillment of some condition by the felon. In reality, when we allow voting by felons is mostly a function of line drawing, and isn’t the binary proposition that some represent. In reality, the positions that a felon does not lose his rights while incarcerated, and that the felon loses his rights only while incarcerated with automatic restoration after released — embraced by 14 states and DC — aren’t that far apart. Sociologically, if we really believe in rehabilitation, and we really believe there is a place for felons to reintegrate into society after they have paid their sentence, voting is integral to full social and political participation. Restoration of voting rights makes perfect sense — but maintaining those rights in prison is definitively a minority position. The idea that the Boston marathon bomber, Timothy McVeigh, a convicted child molester, a drug gang shooter, or Bernie Madoff should be able to influence the system from confinement, the fundamental rules of which were broken which led to the incarceration to begin with, does not sit well with most folks. The fact that only two New England states, Maine and Vermont, with their unique social and political cultures that do not resonate much with people from the South and Midwest, preserve voting rights for incarcerated volumes, speaks volumes about how the rest of the country sees this issue. Sanders illustrates on this issue just how tone deaf he may be to how the rest of the country sees a lot of issues. He hasn’t recognized how unique Vermont, and New England is in relation to the rest of the country, and how that which works great in Vermont might not carry that well in Texas. The wiser statement might have been “Hey, we have a unique way of doing this in Vermont, but this is an issue of state law, and the states should have the discretion to make their own choices” after which he might have talked about reconciliation and reintegration as public goods. If he’s going to be a viable national candidate, he needs to figure that out soon, if he didn’t kill his own campaign with this statement. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sanders-takes-campaign-killing-position-on-felon-voting
lol os trigonum such a silly example of concern trolling for Bernie Sanders. Go back to patiently waiting for trickle down and worrying that if we start providing more health, education and welfare to join the rest of the advanced world it might result in your having to pay more in taxes.
Bernie’s in a unique position where he has the ability to push the envelope in order to get a conversation going about a certain topic, and not necessarily lose any support in the process. He certainly got people talking about voting rights the other day, and he has a point. Even though most people, myself included, don’t believe people in jail necessarily should be allowed to vote. I’m more in the Kamala Harris response here where I think it deserves to have a conversation (kind of the point of what Bernie was doing) and maybe we can look at maybe a merit system or something for non violent offenders still serving or something to have more rights like voting. What we find with Bernie from evidence in 2016 is he actually does end up making the other candidates better. He certainly pushed Hillary to speak clearly about values, and rights. He’s not #1 on my list, but I’m glad he’s in the race because of this reason. I just hope his supporters and organizers realize that it’s not Bernie or bust. If another candidate wins out, I hope they pull that passion over to the next guy/woman who wins.
Thinking he's just trying to start conversations is silly. He wants to win. He's not trying to start convos or make candidates better. He and his team are ruthless towards his opponents and their supporters.
No of course he wants to win, and he is pretty ruthless. He will go after and have his team dig up dirt and run opposition against people like Beto or Kamala like we’ve seen. I’m just saying in that progress it does typically force Dems off of non answers and hedging like he did with Hillary where he forced her to take more direct stances. But yes... I agree. He wants to win and is ruthless. Still I think it still helps the field perform better and be more prepared for Trump.
[Educational Post] The United States economy has never been stronger than today. Record low unemployment levels, record high stock market levels, record GDP levels... we are firing on all cylinders. Opportunity abounds. If a person can't make ends meet in this market, then that's on them. In those circumstances, it's time for personal accountability. What's it's not time for is a radical overhaul of our economic principles -- because they are working magnificently. GOOD DAY
I mean it's either that or you're a fan of his and just blocking it out? His people attack the other members of the Democratic party pretty heavily. His twitter team is vicious. He was caught already coordinating with someone who was attacking his opponents that claimed he didn't work for Bernie.
I know you're trolling but I'll take the bait this time: A record 7 million Americans are 3 months behind on their car. 95 million are still out of the workforce. Wealth inequality hasn't been this bad since before the great depression. MAGA!!!
I don't really consider hitting people on the issues to be ruthless. But that word is squishy in its meaning, especially in this context. It's like debating whether a QB is "elite" or something.
Another ruthless tweet by Bernie the Merciless. \ Bernie Sanders: "The Boomer generation needed just 306 hours of minimum wage work to pay for four years of public college. Millennials need 4,459. The economy today is rigged against working people and young people. That is what we are going to change." (twitter.com) So ruthless. We should be having a general "conversation" about higher education affordability.
Hitting people on the issues? Come on. His twitter people get pretty personal in their attacks of surrogates for candidates other than Bernie. I see @glynch predictably get super defensive and snarky right after your post. You are talking two different things. You can be ruthless and address issues head on (Like Bernie) or you can be ruthless and try to dodge issues or you could be any other combination. Bernie's campaign is ruthless. He himself tries to play above it all, but his operation attacks with the best of them.
Pete was just having a conversation with Pelosi, Shumer and top Dem megadonors about how to stop Sanders. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
