• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

rocket88 said:
But they still can gerrymander along partisan lines. So "We didn't put them in that district because they're black, it's because they're Democrats."
Click to expand...

That's section 5 not section 4.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
Click to expand...

Wait.... you don't think the Supreme Court should be able to strike down laws that Congress passed and the President signed years ago? Are you sure you want to go down that path?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I also wonder if conservatives who don't think it's appropriate to (re-)interpret the Constitution with modern reality in mind will object to this.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS reunterpretted the constitution in this case?
 
QUOTE=TacticalEvilDan;1061971164]If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Jim Crow is constitutional by that logic.
 
So all of the intents, outcomes, and provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including its specific application to the specific states, stands. The only thing that this case said was that congress needs to update the methodology of determining bias in voting laws. Which means that congress is free to make even more effective standards to protect the voting rights of disenfranchised minorities. Well gee, what a big change. It's sad that we need the supreme court to force the congress to do things, but I have a bad feeling that Republicans will do whatever they can to block an updated method from passing through congress. Without that method, Republicans are free to continue their campaign to stop blacks, women, and latinos from voting, since no enforcement will be possible. This is an obvious decision, but with potentially serious consequences.
 
Paschendale said:
So all of the intents, outcomes, and provisions of the Voting Rights Act,
including its specific application to the specific states, stands. The only thing that this case said was that congress needs to update the methodology of determining bias in voting laws. Which means that congress is free to make even more effective standards to protect the voting rights of disenfranchised minorities. Well gee, what a big change. It's sad that we need the supreme court to force the congress to do things, but I have a bad feeling that Republicans will do whatever they can to block an updated method from passing through congress. Without that method, Republicans are free to continue their campaign to stop blacks, women, and latinos from voting, since no enforcement will be possible. This is an obvious decision, but with potentially serious consequences.
Click to expand...

THATS not going to happen so, say "ba-bye" to outdated methodology and draconian Federal Control.
 
Hicup said:
It is when regular citizens question the actions and rationale of their congress.


Tim-
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with questioning Congress. By all means, use the court system to challenge them when they do or authorize something illegal or unConstitutional -- this law was not judged to be either, in which case your recourse is to either to pressure your representative or vote for another candidate.
 
clownboy said:
Had they been sticking to their "job", their oath of office, they would have never rulled it constitutional in the first place. Instead, they did as they've done in the past, allowed unconstitutional acts and provisions to be constitutional in the court's eyes TEMPORARILY, in order to engage in social engineering.
Click to expand...

Even if I agreed with you, that's besides the point since they didn't strike it down on Constitutional grounds.
 
LowDown said:
The law was based on the idea that voting problems existed in certain states and counties that didn't exist in other states and counties. So those areas were subject to oversight while the others were not. Those problems disappeared long ago so it is discriminatory, unfair, unnecessary, and stigmatizing to continue to subject them to special oversight that is expensive and burdensome. Every little change in the voting process, such as moving a polling station down the street to another building, required them to get lawyers to draw up papers to be sent to Washington, DC, and then to wait up to 60 days for a reply. Very very few of the applications for changes are being denied, which lends support to the idea that the process isn't necessary any more.

Meanwhile, it's still illegal to discriminate against minorities in the right to vote. But that won't stop radicals like Obama from demagoging the issue out the wazoo, trying to equate this with the end of voting rights.
Click to expand...

All of that is irrelevant. The law was not struck down on Constitutional grounds, not even based on a rickety BS argument. It was simply judged out-of-date, which is not a determination the Court can make.
 
apdst said:
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
Click to expand...

Jim Crow is constitutional by that logic.
Click to expand...

Er, no.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
Click to expand...

this explain this then, in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore, the USSC rules in a 5 -0 vote..only 5 judges then, that the u.s. bill of rights did not apply to the states, however after the civil war the USSC said it did.

so according to your line of thinking the states dont have to obey the bill of rights.
 
Wow, Texas and North Carolina didn't even wait a single day before declaring that they will push voter ID laws. The whole "win elections by having better ideas" method is just gone from the Republican party, it seems. Win by passing laws to strip American citizens of the right to vote is their policy now.
 
ernst barkmann said:
this explain this then, in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore, the USSC rules in a 5 -0 vote..only 5 judges then, that the u.s. bill of rights did not apply to the states, however after the civil war the USSC said it did.

so according to your line of thinking the states dont have to obey the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

You are making Josie's mistake. I'll repeat myself and highlight the relevant portion that both of you missed:

If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
 
Paschendale said:
Wow, Texas and North Carolina didn't
even wait a single day before declaring that they will push voter ID laws. The whole "win elections by having better ideas" method is just gone from the Republican party, it seems. Win by passing laws to strip American citizens of the right to vote is their policy now.
Click to expand...


Excellent.

It was the Democrats that pushed the racist BS that was the motivation for the 1964 voting rights act.

They even fillibustered it.
 
If the Republican Party does not find a way suppress the votes of people of color, given the demographic changes we're seeing in the United States, they're screwed. But this may backfire. It may help to mobilize minority communities. Why the Republican Party continues to wage wars against different groups (women, the poor, gays, etc.), and in fact have now doubled up on minorities (and other vulnerable groups), is beyond me, but I guess they know what they're doing. It's especially disturbing to see Clarence Thomas participate in this electoral lynching.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You are making Josie's mistake. I'll repeat myself and highlight the relevant portion that both of you missed:

If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
Click to expand...

so you want to just deal with the issue, of the decision of being decided on of .........being outdated

during WWI the u.s. passed a law, concerning espionage, which was suppose to be in force only during the war, however after the war, the congress never removed to the law..its still enforce today.

so this gives you an idea, of our system of laws are perverted.
 
Fenton said:
Excellent.

It was the Democrats that pushed the racist BS that was the motivation for the 1964 voting rights act.

They even fillibustered it.
Click to expand...

the sins of ones past actions or beliefs should not continue to define someone 50 years later. is that in effect what the supreme court ruled in their decision today? that southern states should not continue to subjected to the preclearance requirements of voting rights act because of their past actions of racial discrimination?
 
Paschendale said:
So all of the intents, outcomes, and provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including its specific application to the specific states, stands. The only thing that this case said was that congress needs to update the methodology of determining bias in voting laws. Which means that congress is free to make even more effective standards to protect the voting rights of disenfranchised minorities. Well gee, what a big change. It's sad that we need the supreme court to force the congress to do things, but I have a bad feeling that Republicans will do whatever they can to block an updated method from passing through congress. Without that method, Republicans are free to continue their campaign to stop blacks, women, and latinos from voting, since no enforcement will be possible. This is an obvious decision, but with potentially serious consequences.
Click to expand...

Here we go with the "all Republicans are racits" meme.
 
Paschendale said:
Wow, Texas and North Carolina didn't even wait a single day before declaring that they will push voter ID laws. The whole "win elections by having better ideas" method is just gone from the Republican party, it seems. Win by passing laws to strip American citizens of the right to vote is their policy now.
Click to expand...

wouldn't it be funny if this sparks a voting rights movement? a lot of whites are running scared, and have been ever since the numbers started to change ... What is it? Only 63-64% of the population is white (non-Hispanic) now? it's not hard to understand why so many want to stop folks who aren't white from voting ... but I'm pretty sure it will backfire.
 
windowdressing said:
If the Republican Party does not find a way suppress the votes of people of
color, given the demographic changes we're seeing in the United States, they're screwed. But this may backfire. It may help to mobilize minority communities. Why the Republican Party continues to wage wars against different groups (women, the poor, gays, etc.), and in fact have now doubled up on minorities (and other vulnerable groups), is beyond me, but I guess they know what they're doing. It's especially disturbing to see Clarence Thomas participate in this electoral lynching.
Click to expand...

As long as the Democrats keep creating false Narratives like the Republicans war on whatever, and appealing to the stupidest among us the Country will continue to decline.


People want jobs, not manufactured narratives.

Alas, they're moving to Texas.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the sins of ones past actions or beliefs should not continue to define someone 50 years later. is that in effect what the supreme court ruled in their decision today? that southern states should not continue to subjected to the preclearance requirements of voting rights act because of their past actions of racial discrimination?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what they're saying at all.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so you want to just deal with the issue, of the decision of being decided on of .........being outdated

during WWI the u.s. passed a law, concerning espionage, which was suppose to be in force only during the war, however after the war, the congress never removed to the law..its still enforce today.

so this gives you an idea, of our system of laws are perverted.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are many laws which simply should not be on the books, but we can't have the Court throwing them out because it thinks they're no longer applicable -- that's for Congress to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom