"One has the right to free speech, but that does not give them the right to go to a Kindergarden class and use sexually explicit terms during storytime. One has the right to practice the religion of their choice, but it does not give them the right to murder children because their religion believes in child sacrifices."
In neither case would one be prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment rights; they would be prosecuted for upsetting children (which is what our 'decency' laws are ostensibly for) and murder. No for speech, not for faith. This is like the old saw about yelling 'fire' in a theatre; the panic you induce maliciously is the crime; not the word.
"Since it is our legal sytem, our society and our constitution that gives us those rights, so can they take them away."
If you believe in nothing grander than human constructs, then yes. If you truly believe, for whatever reason, that certain rights are
inalienable from a proper human existence (that is to say, they are intrinsic to a decent life, rather than merely conducive to an organized and efficient society), there is more backing your faith in those institutions than just everybody's agreement.
If not, then yes, the world is a Hobbesian hell-hole in which everyone's freedom ultimately stems from 'only what they can get away with' and the best course of action is to subvert and manipulate the current paradigm to your advantage.
"So what?"
Equal protection under the law is what. Well, it turns out that freedom and equality have certain ramifications that large chunks of our nation just can't deal with (and they secretly wish
were organized by an easily-understood caste or patronage system) so they elected representatives to codify inequality
into the law. Bing! No more legal contradiction
(one wonders what portion of black freemen are still disenfranchised, or indentured laborers...)
"Using the pedophile example is classic as it is always brought up as rationale to restrict our rights as people tend to lose any sense of logic when it comes to the safety of their children. I suspect that the majority of Americans would agree to the repeal of the entire Constitution if it was sold to them as somehow making it safer for their children."
Yup, pretty much every restriction we currently have was put in place at least in part "for the children"(gun control, federalized education, drug war(s), terrorism paranoia, environmental, labor regulations, food/drug, automotive, travel...the list goes on). That line about Fascism carrying a Bible and waving a flag missed 'and crying about the children'
"The Constitution says you cannot be denied your rights without due process. It says nothing about that denial being restricted to periods of physical incarceration. I still contend that post release sanctions can be considered as part of the penalty."
Absolutely true, they do have that authority. The authority to make felons of huge tracts of the population with repugnant laws, then deign to set us 'free' to live our lives as 'free men' without basic human rights or dignity.
"I don't care what a thug "wants". I don't WANT them to be a free person. But reality is, we can't/won't keep them locked up forever."
There is a third option, which goody-two-shoes always love to tip-toe around, pretending their alternative it doesn't have
exactly the same outcome, but with
enormous unintended consequences
"Innocent until proven guilty you say? Well, they have proven what they are by virtue of their previous conviction"
Double jeopardy. This nation's justice system is founded in Judeo-Christian forgiveness; otherwise we'd either have no need for prisons, or end up with nothing but. Also ___-cide of 'criminally-prone' groups.
"If they can demonstrate that they truly have changed their ways, then there should be a mandatory, fully funded process in place to restore ALL their rights. "
Should be. Isn't. Won't be.
These people have no rights. Thus, they have no hold on their government to treat them justly (that responsibility is on us free men, should we bother to accept it). The only reason Holder's agitating for restoration of felons' voting rights is because there's no such thing without the others (Speak up? back in the clink, you dirty felon. Organize your fellows against us? Get back in your cage, you animal. Demand representation beyond what we pretend to grant you? You only have a voice because we granted you one, and it had better sing in tune)
TCB