• 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!

Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

sangha said:
You haven't proven that their only mission was to "bring" electricity to a certain region

And SCOTUS has decided that VRA is constitutional, therefore it is.

And VRA applies to every state
Click to expand...

You are just spitting and spinning with you hands over your ears. The VRA does NOT apply equally to every state, only certain states are required to check with the feds before making laws concerning voting in their state. You obviously don't know and didn't bother to read up on the REA before responding, so your ignorance is unexcusable.
 
sangha said:
Bronx County, NY is an example
Click to expand...

Show us. Link please.

Oh and btw, if you took the time to familiarize yourself with the VRA as you should have, you'd know NY is not one of the tested states.
 
sangha said:
Which is what VRA. It only sanctions areas that have broken the law
Click to expand...

No, and I suggest you read the VRA before you make further erroneous statements.
 
He's entirely right.

Some people just like getting their panties in a twist and shout racism.
 
clownboy said:
You are just spitting and spinning with you hands over your ears. The VRA does NOT apply equally to every state, only certain states are required to check with the feds before making laws concerning voting in their state. You obviously don't know and didn't bother to read up on the REA before responding, so your ignorance is unexcusable.
Click to expand...

VRA, like murder laws, applies to every state

VRA sanctions, like murders' sanctions, only apply to areas that acted illegally
 
Are self-described "civil rights activists" ever not outraged?

I always imagine them sitting around like the "**** you dolphins, **** you whales!" episode on south park, only dolphins = white people and whales = republicans.
 
sangha said:
VRA, like murder laws, applies to every state
Click to expand...

No, again it doesn't apply equally to all states. Read the act.

sangha said:
VRA sanctions, like murders' sanctions, only apply to areas that acted illegally
Click to expand...

There are no "sanctions" for murder, there are penalties. And the VRA heaps unequal treatment on those states who WERE slave states, NOT on those acting illegally now.
 
Fisher said:
Your comment makes it apparent that you do not understand how the law works. It currently does not apply everywhere. There are places where there have been no found violations of the law where the law does apply and there have been places that had what would have been violations had the law applied to them but it does not. The issue is not really whether there should be a law but to whom it applies. There are reportedly several places in the north where there are troubling things going on but the law does not apply to them so they get away with it because they do not have to have preclearance. I believe Harrisburg PA is one of the cities I have heard mentioned as being particularly offensive to minorities but since they were not covered in the original act, they can do whatever they want under the VRA.

View attachment 67143513
Click to expand...

Then why not extend it to all 50 States instead? THe SC needs to stop legislating from the bench.
 
sangha said:
Yes, and your not knowing how areas are subject to sanctionss proves you haven't read it
Click to expand...

So, you admit to not knowing what you're talking about but seek to excuse that by saying I don't either. Laughable argument.
 
clownboy said:
No, again it doesn't apply equally to all states. Read the act.
Click to expand...

Prove that the VRA doesn't apply to every state. Please quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain states



There are no "sanctions" for murder, there are penalties. And the VRA heaps unequal treatment on those states who WERE slave states, NOT on those acting illegally now.
Click to expand...

Penalties are sanctions and VRA sanctions areas that are not in former slave states
 
clownboy said:
So, you admit to not knowing what you're talking about but seek to excuse that by saying I don't either. Laughable argument.
Click to expand...

I see you still can't quote from VRA that says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
 
sangha said:
The VRA applies to all 50 states
Click to expand...

Section 5 does not.

For example, Rhode Island has a voter ID law, but it was blocked by the Justice Department in South Carolina. Please explain how that is an equal application of the law.
 
sangha said:
I see you still can't quote from VRA that says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
Click to expand...

The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance.[5] These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964.[5] The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.[6]

Source
Click to expand...

Also - YOU yourself linked to the covered jurisdictions.
 
ReformCollege said:
Section 5 does not.

For example, Rhode Island has a voter ID law, but it was blocked by the Justice Department in South Carolina. Please explain how that is an equal application of the law.
Click to expand...

Simple.

Rhode Island does not qualify as a "covered location". SC does.
 
sangha said:
Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969).
Click to expand...

Didn't read that did you? The SCOTUS found that this name insertion was protected under the VRA AND the 14th. SCOTUS did not decide the VRA was constitutional in reagard s to a 14th amendment complaint. That has not been adjudicated by the SCOTUS as yet.

No cigar.
 
sangha said:
Simple.

Rhode Island does not qualify as a "covered location". SC does.
Click to expand...

So you're now agreeing that law doesn't cover every state.
 
sangha said:
I asked you to quote from VRA, not Wikipedia

Again, please quote from VRA where it says that VRA only applies to certain specific states and areas
Click to expand...

So you quoted from wikipedia, but are asking him to quote directly from the law?

You should read your signature on that one.
 
clownboy said:
Didn't read that did you? The SCOTUS found that this name insertion was protected under the VRA AND the 14th. SCOTUS did not decide the VRA was constitutional in reagard s to a 14th amendment complaint. That has not been adjudicated by the SCOTUS as yet.

No cigar.
Click to expand...

So SCOTUS found that the 14th allows this but that doesn't meant that the 14th allows this :screwy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom