Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-22-2009, 07:57 PM
 
2,340 posts, read 4,633,129 times
Reputation: 1678

Advertisements

from the washington post. Thoughts??

The SC is about to hand "down its decision in a crucial voting rights case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. At issue is whether Congress can continue to require states with egregious past and current discriminatory voting practices to first receive clearance for changes in voting procedures from the Justice Department or a federal judge.

The Voting Rights Act is not an example of an unconstitutional power grab by Congress. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, no less, grants Congress authority to enforce the constitutional right to vote. Section 2 of the 15th Amendment says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The Voting Rights Act, as noted in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by several groups in the case, reflects "a quintessentially legislative judgment about how to protect fundamental constitutional rights." It has stood the test of time. Congress has reauthorized Section 5 of the act on several occasions, most recently in 2006. The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to the act at least four times.

For the Roberts court to push Congress aside, assume the role of legislature and decide how the 15th Amendment must be enforced would be an act of judicial usurpation that Thomas, an originalist, ought to abhor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2009, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,966,939 times
Reputation: 7118
This is a duplicate thread.

The decision was a narrow one and did not address the constitutionality of the amendment. 8-1 decision for allowing a bailout, so let's not make this a partisan decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2009, 08:08 PM
 
2,340 posts, read 4,633,129 times
Reputation: 1678
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
This is a duplicate thread.

The decision was a narrow one and did not address the constitutionality of the amendment. 8-1 decision for allowing a bailout, so let's not make this a partisan decision.
Where is the thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2009, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,966,939 times
Reputation: 7118
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...il-rights.html

A bit over the top in the title - maybe the op didn't actually read the ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top