Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with his logic is that either Congress has the power to enforce section 5 of the voting rights act or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. In fifty years it has not been ruled unconstitutional. A Justice who complains about judicial activism shouldn't be overturning a law dutifully passed by congress unless it is unconstitutional, even if he doesn't like the fact that congress continues to renew it.
there is an actual case to be made based ont he equal protection clause (isnt that ironic?) because the federal government is treating citizens of different states differenly, punishing those who live in certain states.
I'm taking it you didn't read the article. The old Jim Crow laws might not be there, but some people have made efforts to suppress voting.
I read the article. Republicans try to surprise early voting because that is when democrats vote. Democrats try to suppress Election Day voting and military voting because that is when republicans vote. That is the game; neither of them is stopping minorities.
I read the article. Republicans try to surprise early voting because that is when democrats vote. Democrats try to suppress Election Day voting and military voting because that is when republicans vote. That is the game; neither of them is stopping minorities.
The way I see it, you have to read between the lines. There is more here than meets the eye.
The way I see it, you have to read between the lines. There is more here than meets the eye.
I think your hoping to find a boogy man. The rules of the game are laid out in law, based on the constitution. Each side tries to game the system to their advantage and at the same time try and stop the other side from doing the same. The ultimately deciders are the courts, each side pushes and pushes until the courts put them back in there place and clarifies the rules. Then the process starts over again.
You probably don't know this but the VRA was actually supported more by republicans when it was originally passed. The south democrats didn't think it was that great of an idea.
I think your hoping to find a boogy man. The rules of the game are laid out in law, based on the constitution. Each side tries to game the system to their advantage and at the same time try and stop the other side from doing the same. The ultimately deciders are the courts, each side pushes and pushes until the courts put them back in there place and clarifies the rules. Then the process starts over again.
You probably don't know this but the VRA was actually supported more by republicans when it was originally passed. The south democrats didn't think it was that great of an idea.
I'm not trying to find a boogy-man. When I think of voter suppression, the quickest thing I think of is what was done to Blacks. I look at alot of things from the perspective of what has happened throughout history. I also understand that alot of this is about power and control. Both sides want power. I've even said this in many posts.
And as for Democrats vs Republicans, it is important to note that many Southern Democrats later became Republicans after this.
I'm not trying to find a boogy-man. When I think of voter suppression, the quickest thing I think of is what was done to Blacks. I look at alot of things from the perspective of what has happened throughout history. I also understand that alot of this is about power and control. Both sides want power. I've even said this in many posts.
And as for Democrats vs Republicans, it is important to note that many Southern Democrats later became Republicans after this.
I know about what happened in the south and of course I don't condone it.
For section 5 of the VRA to stand we had to have severe violations of rights (which we had). 50 years later those violations are gone, so this section has now become unconstitutional, at least that is what's being challenged.
Ultimately states rights wins over 50 year old issues that are no longer present.
there is an actual case to be made based ont he equal protection clause (isnt that ironic?) because the federal government is treating citizens of different states differenly, punishing those who live in certain states.
Then make the case (not you literally). Its not like it is suddenly an equal protection clause case. If it is then it always was. No need to go into this nonsense about "Racial Entitlement" or worrying about how Congress won't have the political will to not renew it.
Then make the case (not you literally). Its not like it is suddenly an equal protection clause case. If it is then it always was. No need to go into this nonsense about "Racial Entitlement" or worrying about how Congress won't have the political will to not renew it.
The argument is that when the law was passed, minority rights, also outlined in the constitution, were being trampled to such an extent by certain states, that oversight by congress was needed for voter rules. It is almost like emergency powers given to the president. The president can bypass congress for a certain amount of time when the nation faces a grave threat, but must seek congressional approval for war within (I think) 90 days.
So congress was given emergency authority because the situation was so dire. Now, 50 years later, the situation is not dire at all and continued violation of equal protection should not be allowed.
We should know in 9 months who wins.
And just so everyone is clear, the rest of the VRA will still apply to all states. This just makes 9 southern states to be just like the other 41.
The argument is that when the law was passed, minority rights, also outlined in the constitution, were being trampled to such an extent by certain states, that oversight by congress was needed for voter rules. It is almost like emergency powers given to the president. The president can bypass congress for a certain amount of time when the nation faces a grave threat, but must seek congressional approval for war within (I think) 90 days.
So congress was given emergency authority because the situation was so dire. Now, 50 years later, the situation is not dire at all and continued violation of equal protection should not be allowed.
We should know in 9 months who wins.
And just so everyone is clear, the rest of the VRA will still apply to all states. This just makes 9 southern states to be just like the other 41.
First off it isn't only Southern States that are covered by Section 5 of the VRA.
Either the Federal Government has the power to require preclearance or they don't. If they have the power then it is up to Congress to renew the exercise of that power or not. Currently I believe it is set to expire in 2032. The Act was last renewed in 2006. So it may have started 50 years ago, but Congress just renewed it recently
The Supreme Court should not step in and declare that the Congress shouldn't have renewed it. Whether or not the Supreme Court believes the Act is still required is immaterial, that is not up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can declare that the U.S Constitution does not grant Congress or Federal Government the powers contained in the Act.
Scalia is just being Scalia. I'll leave it at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
