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



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

Since you seem obstinantly unable to follow a link and actually read the act you are trying to defend - here, from the link itself:

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
as amended by the
VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970

Prohibits the use for 5 years of literacy tests and other devices
(found by Congress to be discriminatory) as qualifications for
voting in any Federal, State, local, general, or primary election.
Permits 18-year-olds to vote in any general or primary election
for Federal office.

Assures that residency requirements will no longer prevent citizens
from voting for President and Vice President.

Provides for the assignment of Federal examiners to conduct
registration and of Federal observers to observe voting in States
or counties covered by the special provisions of the act.

Requires Federal clearance of new voting laws or procedures of
States or counties covered by the special provisions of the act.
Extends civil and criminal protection to qualified persons seeking
to vote and to those who urge or aid others to vote.

This publication is issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as part of
its clearinghouse function. It discusses the coverage, administration, and other
subjects covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1970. The text of these acts appears on pp. 11-25.
Click to expand...

The text of the act follows and the special provisons sections are listed in multiple places throughout the act, some being a page or two long. Read the damn thing and stop playing games.
 
sangha said:
No, the reality that SCOTUS has decided that VRA does not violate the 14th amend
Click to expand...

Again, you have not shown that. The SCOTUS has taken up no such case for that decision to be made.
 
clownboy said:
Since you seem obstinantly unable to follow a link and actually read the act you are trying to defend - here, from the link itself:



The text of the act follows and the special provisons sections are listed in multiple places throughout the act, some being a page or two long. Read the damn thing and stop playing games.
Click to expand...

The quote you posted does not say that it only applies certain specific states or areas
 
sangha said:
I see you *still* can't quote from VRA where it says it only applies to certain specific states and areas



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

Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to
which the prohibitions set forth in section 4 (a) are in effect shall
enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to
voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting
different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such
State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,
and unjess and until the court enters such judgment no person shall
be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided,
That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice^ or procedure
may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by
the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or
subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has
not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission,
except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a
declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall
be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance
with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States
Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

There ya go. As defined by the law, it specially covers any state or county who was in defiance of the law on Nov 1st, 1964. No where in the law does it state that that date should be updated every 5 years, or every 10 years, so therefore, we are still sanctioning states based solely on transgressions dating back to 1964. http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11032.pdf
 
sangha said:
The quote you posted does not say that it only applies certain specific states or areas
Click to expand...

Does the word "special" mean anything to do? It means different. If I say a law is being applied to special states, are you really thinking that that wording means all states?
 
sangha said:
The quote you posted does not say that it only applies certain specific states or areas
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

Provides for the assignment of Federal examiners to conduct
registration and of Federal observers to observe voting in States
or counties covered by the special provisions of the act.
Click to expand...

It's become very obvious you haven't read the act to discover if you are correct or just making **** up as you go along. Read it, I kindly provided you with the text of the act, take some time and then choose how you would like that crow prepared. :mrgreen:
 
sangha said:
No, the reality that SCOTUS has decided that VRA does not violate the 14th amend
Click to expand...

They are still in oral arguments, in case you were unaware.
 
ReformCollege said:
There ya go. As defined by the law, it specially covers any state or county who was in defiance of the law on Nov 1st, 1964. No where in the law does it state that that date should be updated every 5 years, or every 10 years, so therefore, we are still sanctioning states based solely on transgressions dating back to 1964. http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11032.pdf
Click to expand...

IOW, EVERY STATE had to be abide by the law, or face sanctions

IOW, contrary to your claims, VRA does not say that it applies only to certain specific states or areas. It says that it only applies to states and areas that acted illegally.
 
ChezC3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wish I could like this twice.
 
ReformCollege said:
Does the word "special" mean anything to do? It means different. If I say a law is being applied to special states, are you really thinking that that wording means all states?
Click to expand...

The word "special" applies to provisions of the VRA, which are different than other provisions

You don't really think that all the provisions say the same thing, do you? :lamo
 
clownboy said:
Yes, it does.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't


It's become very obvious you haven't read the act to discover if you are correct or just making **** up as you go along. Read it, I kindly provided you with the text of the act, take some time and then choose how you would like that crow prepared. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And your quote does not say that the VRA applies only to certain specific states or counties
 
sangha said:
IOW, EVERY STATE had to be abide by the law, or face sanctions

IOW, contrary to your claims, VRA does not say that it applies only to certain specific states or areas. It says that it only applies to states and areas that acted illegally.
Click to expand...

That had acted illegally prior to 1965.

It's like saying we should use the 1899 census to determine our immigration quotas.
 
sangha said:
The word "special" applies to provisions of the VRA, which are different than other provisions

You don't really think that all the provisions say the same thing, do you? :lamo
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. The states covered in those special provisions, which are different from other provisions. Therefore, certain states are being covered differently then others.
 
ReformCollege said:
You're absolutely right. The states covered in those special provisions, which are different from other provisions. Therefore, certain states are being covered differently then others.
Click to expand...

Those "special provisions" do not say that they apply only to certain specific states and counties
 
sangha said:
IOW, EVERY STATE had to be abide by the law, or face sanctions

IOW, contrary to your claims, VRA does not say that it applies only to certain specific states or areas. It says that it only applies to states and areas that acted illegally.
Click to expand...

A State is specially covered if it:
Maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device as a prerequisite
to registration or voting and
Had a total voting age population of which less than 50 percent was
registered or actually voted in the 1964 presidential election.
or
Maintained on November 1, 1968, any test or device as a prerequisite
to registration or voting and
Had a total voting age population of which less than 50 percent was
registered or actually voted in the 1968 presidential election.
In a State which does not fall under these requirements, individual counties can
be specially covered if they meet either of the tests.
In addition, the special provisions can be made to apply to any State or county
in the country if a court so orders in a suit brought by the Attorney General to
enforce the 15th amendment.
Click to expand...

The following States and counties remain specially covered under provisions
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Alabama Virginia
Georgia 39 counties in North Carolina
Louisiana Yuma County, Arizona
Mississippi Honolulu County, Hawaii
South Carolina
Click to expand...


Surely you aren't going to disagree with the Law department of the University of Maryland are you?
 
clownboy said:
Well, luck and a lifetime studying and adjudicating the law.
Click to expand...
Bah...law school and a lifetime of studying the law is for chumps. All you need is an internet connection and a login and you instantly know more about what the law REALLY means than those lawyer types.
 
ReformCollege said:
Surely you aren't going to disagree with the Law department of the University of Maryland are you?
Click to expand...

The quotes from the VRA do not say that they apply only to certain specific states. They say they apply to any state which violates those provisions.

The quote from UM is not a quote from VRA and merely identifies those states who violated those "special provisions" of VRA
 
sangha said:
IOW, EVERY STATE had to be abide by the law, or face sanctions

IOW, contrary to your claims, VRA does not say that it applies only to certain specific states or areas. It says that it only applies to states and areas that acted illegally.
Click to expand...

No, in fact it doesn't contain the word "illegally". The special provisons in the act apply only to certain states and localities that have a history (prior to the enactment of the legislation) of voting discrimination.
 
sangha said:
The quotes from the VRA do not say that they apply only to certain specific states. They say they apply to any state which violates those provisions.

The quote from UM is not a quote from VRA and merely identifies those states who violated those "special provisions" of VRA
Click to expand...

So you know more then the UM's law school? Now you're just arguing from ignorance.
 
sangha said:
Those "special provisions" do not say that they apply only to certain specific states and counties
Click to expand...

Except they do - again YOU posted the list of the specific states and counties those special provisions apply to. Important to note that that list has not changed since enactment except for the three counties that have gained bailout from it as provided in the 2010 amendment to the act.
 
clownboy said:
No, in fact it doesn't contain the word "illegally". The special provisons in the act apply only to certain states and localities that have a history (prior to the enactment of the legislation) of voting discrimination.
Click to expand...

No, the law applies to all states and counties
 
clownboy said:
Except they do - again YOU posted the list of the specific states and counties those special provisions apply to. Important to note that that list has not changed since enactment except for the three counties that have gained bailout from it as provided in the 2010 amendment to the act.
Click to expand...

You still can't quote where the VRA says it only applies to certain specific states

Your argument is that because only murderers are jailed, the murder laws do not apply to all :screwy
 
sangha said:
The UM agrees with me and contradicts your claim
Click to expand...

You do know the difference between section 2 and section 5 don't you? Section 5 is still running based on the 1972 (it was updated by an amendment) formula on which states have to cooperate with section 5. Everyone else understands that, seemingly except for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom