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.
That is the whole point of Scalia quote, that just because congress passes it doesn't make it valid. He said that congress will pass it in perpituity because it would make them look bad to be voting against civil rights. That is why the court is ultimately deciding if it is constitutional or not.
Either Congress had the power originally or they didn't. I understand that just because Congress passes a law and the President signs it doesn't make it constitutionally valid.
Scalia's position, at least in the statements in question, is that the VRA section 5 was always unconstitutional, but hey we (the majority of the country) agreed with what it was doing; so we will just ignore the constitutionality of the law. Now that some (unknown percentage) disagree with its provisions we are considering asserting its unconstitutionality, because Congress is unlikely to amend or eliminate it.
If Scalia believes the law is unconstitutional he should rule against it and cut out the other commentary about what Congress may or may not do.
Either Congress had the power originally or they didn't. I understand that just because Congress passes a law and the President signs it doesn't make it constitutionally valid.
Scalia's position, at least in the statements in question, is that the VRA section 5 was always unconstitutional, but hey we (the majority of the country) agreed with what it was doing; so we will just ignore the constitutionality of the law. Now that some (unknown percentage) disagree with its provisions we are considering asserting its unconstitutionality, because Congress is unlikely to amend or eliminate it.
If Scalia believes the law is unconstitutional he should rule against it and cut out the other commentary about what Congress may or may not do.
The law could have been constitutional in the past. The states in questions were violating other constitutional rights to such an extent a pressing government need allowed this type of law to I force the other law.
The question now is weather the states still are/will violate the those same constitutional rights to the same extent in the past to make the law still valid.
Scalia was talking about congress because it was brought up how it was passed by 96 or 98 senators, and someone was saying that proves it is still needed. Scalia then said just because congress votes for it does not determine if it is needed or not because senators have no reason to vote against because of how it would sound in an election.
Personally, I think section 5 will get overturned 5-4, with a very outside chance at 6-3
The law could have been constitutional in the past. The states in questions were violating other constitutional rights to such an extent a pressing government need allowed this type of law to I force the other law.
The question now is weather the states still are/will violate the those same constitutional rights to the same extent in the past to make the law still valid.
Scalia was talking about congress because it was brought up how it was passed by 96 or 98 senators, and someone was saying that proves it is still needed. Scalia then said just because congress votes for it does not determine if it is needed or not because senators have no reason to vote against because of how it would sound in an election.
Personally, I think section 5 will get overturned 5-4, with a very outside chance at 6-3
Scalia's position and what you appear to be arguing for is that if the Supreme Court feels that a dutifully implemented law is not required then the Supreme Court can rule that it is unconstitutional.
If Scalia and his fellow conservative Justices rule with that justification then they have squarely entered the realm of judicial activism (legislating from the bench) that they publicly proclaim to abhor.
Scalia's position and what you appear to be arguing for is that if the Supreme Court feels that a dutifully implemented law is not required then the Supreme Court can rule that it is unconstitutional.
If Scalia and his fellow conservative Justices rule with that justification then they have squarely entered the realm of judicial activism (legislating from the bench) that they publicly proclaim to abhor.
So striking down part of a law as unconstitutional is judicial activism now? Why even have the third branch of government.
So striking down part of a law as unconstitutional is judicial activism now? Why even have the third branch of government.
When your reason for striking a law down is you don't think it is required then yes it is judicial activism. The Supreme Court should not strike down laws they disagree with unless they have justification on constitutional grounds; at which point it shouldn't matter whether the agree with the law or not.
Its not Scalia's role to pass judgement on Congressional actions unless those actions were unconstitutional. Either Congress had the power to pass and implement a law with this type of protections for voters or it didn't.
That power doesn't change over time and isn't based on the conditions at any particular point in time. Which is one of the reasons it is extremely rare the Supreme Court to reverse a prior Supreme Court's decision.
Anyone who deos agree is a racist has normal with many.They think its some kind of magic word but its been way over used and is seen as pure political rethoric now days.
When your reason for striking a law down is you don't think it is required then yes it is judicial activism. The Supreme Court should not strike down laws they disagree with unless they have justification on constitutional grounds; at which point it shouldn't matter whether the agree with the law or not.
Its not Scalia's role to pass judgement on Congressional actions unless those actions were unconstitutional. Either Congress had the power to pass and implement a law with this type of protections for voters or it didn't.
That power doesn't change over time and isn't based on the conditions at any particular point in time. Which is one of the reasons it is extremely rare the Supreme Court to reverse a prior Supreme Court's decision.
But section 5 blatantly contradicts the constitution. It's not even debated at this point. Part of the constitution was being so heavily violated by the south that special circumstances caused the violation of one part of the constitution to enforce another part of the constitution.
The debate is are they still heavily violating the constitution in those 9 states so that section 5 is still needed.
Scalia is saying just because congress thinks so is not a valid argument, the court determines if the current constitutional violation should stay in place.
"The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states"
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.
