• 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:
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...

That's peachy, but you feel no obligation to provide the info I've asked for (mostly because you can't), I feel even less obligation. Are you disputing there are covered jurisdictions? Funny, YOU linked to them. Rock and hard place for your argument.
 
ReformCollege said:
So you quoted from wikipedia, but are asking him to quote directly from the law?

You should read your signature on that one.
Click to expand...

You claimed the VRA only covers certains states. Prove it

The wiki link agrees with me - section 5 applies sanctions only to states which engaged in illegal behavior
 
clownboy said:
That's peachy, but you feel no obligation to provide the info I've asked for (mostly because you can't), I feel even less obligation. Are you disputing there are covered jurisdictions? Funny, YOU linked to them. Rock and hard place for your argument.
Click to expand...

I never denied that there are covered areas. I argued that the VRA applies to all states.

It's not my fault you can't understnd those two simple ideas
 
sangha said:
So SCOTUS found that the 14th allows this but that doesn't meant that the 14th allows this :screwy
Click to expand...

Wow. No, that's not what the decision says or even what it was about. The equal protection element of the 14th AND the provisions against voting rights restrictions in the VRA is what made this decision. It wasn't a question of the constitutionality of the VRA in light of the 14th (which was what you were supposed to link to proof of). The court hasn't decided on the constitutionality of the VRA AFAIK. That's coming.
 
clownboy said:
Wow. No, that's not what the decision says or even what it was about. The equal protection element of the 14th AND the provisions against voting rights restrictions in the VRA is what made this decision. It wasn't a question of the constitutionality of the VRA in light of the 14th (which was what you were supposed to link to proof of). The court hasn't decided on the constitutionality of the VRA AFAIK. That's coming.
Click to expand...

IOW, VRA protects the equal protections of rights under the 14th, but it's inconsistent with the 14ths protections of equal rights :screwy
 
sangha said:
You claimed the VRA only covers certains states. Prove it
Click to expand...

You've already done that. In fact you admit it in the very next sentence.

sangha said:
The wiki link agrees with me - section 5 applies sanctions only to states which engaged in illegal behavior
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The sanctions apply ONLY to those states and localities who had a previous history of voting suppression where it comes to black Americans, NOT to those currently committing illegal behavior. Look up why law is not retroactive in it's punishment.
 
sangha said:
IOW, VRA protects the equal protections of rights under the 14th, but it's inconsistent with the 14ths protections of equal rights :screwy
Click to expand...

Again, no. I can only assume you are purposefully misunderstanding the decision YOU posted. I'm done, keep on believing whatever you wish.
 
sangha said:
I never denied that there are covered areas. I argued that the VRA applies to all states.

It's not my fault you can't understnd those two simple ideas
Click to expand...

The covered areas, that you finally admit to, are not treated equally under the law, that is a violation of the 14th.

It's really simple, for equal treatment under the law ALL states and localities would have to check with the feds before making laws that concern voting. That is NOT the case with the VRA now.
 
clownboy said:
You've already done that. In fact you admit it in the very next sentence.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not my fault you fail to distinguish between VRA and "covered areas" (which VRA doesn't name)



No, it doesn't. The sanctions apply ONLY to those states and localities who had a previous history of voting suppression where it comes to black Americans, NOT to those currently committing illegal behavior. Look up why law is not retroactive in it's punishment.
Click to expand...

And the sanctions for murder are being applied to people who are NOT currently committing murder
 
clownboy said:
The covered areas, that you finally admit to, are not treated equally under the law, that is a violation of the 14th.

It's really simple, for equal treatment under the law ALL states and localities would have to check with the feds before making laws that concern voting. That is NOT the case with the VRA now.
Click to expand...

And since the sanctions for murder are only applied to people who commit murder, the murder laws violate the 14th amend. :screwy
 
I'd offer my opinion on constitutional law and the decisions of the SCOTUS, but then...anything I say would just be based on my opinion about an issue and not an actual formal education in law. That Scalia...like all of them...from grocery store clerks to Supreme Court justices. That's that crazy Italian luck right there...
 
sangha said:
Nope, it's not my fault you fail to distinguish between VRA and "covered areas" (which VRA doesn't name).
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The VRA established these covered areas in the special provisions of the act. Try reading it

sangha said:
And the sanctions for murder are being applied to people who are NOT currently committing murder
Click to expand...

No. The penaties for murder are only applied to those found guilty of murder. Had a murder been committed before the law against murder was established it cannot be penalized under that law.
 
VanceMack said:
I'd offer my opinion on constitutional law and the decisions of the SCOTUS, but then...anything I say would just be based on my opinion about an issue and not an actual formal education in law. That Scalia...like all of them...from grocery store clerks to Supreme Court justices. That's that crazy Italian luck right there...
Click to expand...

Well, luck and a lifetime studying and adjudicating the law.
 
sangha said:
So SCOTUS found that the 14th allows this but that doesn't meant that the 14th allows this :screwy
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is also reviewing that decision.
 
clownboy said:
You're wrong. The VRA established these covered areas in the special provisions of the act. Try reading it
Click to expand...

And yet, you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas



No. The penaties for murder are only applied to those found guilty of murder. Had a murder been committed before the law against murder was established it cannot be penalized under that law.
Click to expand...

And the sanctions under the VRA are only applied to those found guilty of depriving people of equal protection.
 
sangha said:
And yet, you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
Click to expand...

Good grief, read the link, it's the VRA and a handy summary beforehand. It's all right there for you. But here you are again, asking me to prove what you've already admitted exists.

sangha said:
And the sanctions under the VRA are only applied to those found guilty of depriving people of equal protection.
Click to expand...

Again, no. There was no finding of guilt here and those special provisions under the VRA that create covered areas deal with historical behavior which precedes the act. Retroactivity in law, look into it.
 
clownboy said:
Good grief, read the link, it's the VRA and a handy summary beforehand. It's all right there for you. But here you are again, asking me to prove what you've already admitted exists.
Click to expand...

I see you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas

Again, no. There was no finding of guilt here and those special provisions under the VRA that create covered areas deal with historical behavior which precedes the act. Retroactivity in law, look into it.
Click to expand...

And yet, you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas
 
iguanaman said:
Then why not extend it to all 50 States instead? THe SC needs to stop legislating from the bench.
Click to expand...

It probably should be just so all states feel the pain. The Court has not ruled yet that I am aware of--just oral arguments.

If you are unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts, it can be a huge pain in the butt, especially if things happen at the last minute like a polling station floods or burns down. Dealing with that stuff requires approval--anything whatsoever you do requires approval and it does not always come that quickly.
 
sangha said:
So you admit that SCOTUS decided that VRA doesn't violate the 14th

It's about time you acknowledged reality
Click to expand...

The reality that there is a strong possibility that section 5 will be ruled unconstitutional?
 
Civil Rights leaders get enraged if Scalia puts lemon curd on his morning crumpets instead of blackberry jam. Truthful, legitimate questions being asked or opinions given, that jeopordize political power obtained, will always find outrage and be deemed ill-suitable for public consumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom