• 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

state powers such as Indiana polluting Lake Michigan at 20 times the MERCURY level--these are states' wrongs not states' rights

i never say rights...states dont have rights...they have powers only....rights are indicative of flesh and blood people only.

the founders state the federal government duties are few and defined, ..were state powers is vast.....as the constitution confirms this.
 
Why did Madison call the Constitutional Convention together in thew first place? To deal with its 13 petulant children and, for example, their 9 separate Navies and huge debts.
tell me if some states broke the law, can the congress violate the constitution then, in what they determine to fix the problem
 
Even if true, we're only over 300,000,000 people and 224 years later. You should be chuckling at this example of judicial activism, since it pleases your federalist beliefs.
i never say rights...states dont have rights...they have powers only....rights are indicative of flesh and blood people only.

the founders state the federal government duties are few and defined, ..were state powers is vast.....as the constitution confirms this.
 
Are you still for poll taxes, Paul? And changing voting times and all to help Republicans over Democrats? And having 50 states with 50 different rules affecting Federal elections. Of course you are. You still want 50 separate countries.
Why would anyone be against requiring an ID to participate in our election process?
 
Why did Madison call the Constitutional Convention together in thew first place? To deal with its 13 petulant children and, for example, their 9 separate Navies and huge debts.

well Madison by himself did not bring them together. several members brought them together.

they went to Philadelphia to fix the articles of confederation, but a new constitution was written to solves the problems of the articles and one was a problem of commerce, and the power of government to enforce its duties of law.

but under the constitution congress only has 18 duties , anything outside those duties is unconstitutional.........welfare, housing ,education, EPA, and many others.....and voting was left in the hands of the states, not congress.
 
Are you still for poll taxes, Paul? And changing voting times and all to help Republicans over Democrats? And having 50 states with 50 different rules affecting Federal elections. Of course you are. You still want 50 separate countries.

Do you still beat yourself? Don't ever infer something that I have not expressly stated linc...
 
Even if true, we're only over 300,000,000 people and 224 years later. You should be chuckling at this example of judicial activism, since it pleases your federalist beliefs.

actually, it would not be federalist...it would be anti-federalist, the federalist wanted a big centralized government.

judicial activism has been going on for many many years, decisions of the court should be based solely on what the constitution says, ...not on fairness, social justice, and what a judges political thoughts are.
 
I don't see why this is a big deal. If discrimination is seen, Congress can still pass another law based on updated information and section 5 would be enforced along those updated lines. Considering many mayors in these areas are now black, it doesn't make sense to assume they are all discriminating against blacks like they were 40 years ago.
 
Are you still for poll taxes, Paul? And changing voting times and all to help Republicans over Democrats? And having 50 states with 50 different rules affecting Federal elections. Of course you are. You still want 50 separate countries.

It is the U.S. Constitution that mandates "50 states with 50 different rules affecting Federal elections." This was a timely and balanced ruling. Well done to the SCOTUS.:cool:
 
well Madison by himself did not bring them together. several members brought them together.

they went to Philadelphia to fix the articles of confederation, but a new constitution was written to solves the problems of the articles and one was a problem of commerce, and the power of government to enforce its duties of law.

but under the constitution congress only has 18 duties , anything outside those duties is unconstitutional.........welfare, housing ,education, EPA, and many others.....and voting was left in the hands of the states, not congress.

I don't for a second believe that 18 would be true today.
 
I don't see why this is a big deal. If discrimination is seen, Congress can still pass another law based on updated information and section 5 would be enforced along those updated lines. Considering many mayors in these areas are now black, it doesn't make sense to assume they are all discriminating against blacks like they were 40 years ago.

Congressional Republicans would toast you with a cold one and then laugh out.
 
I don't for a second believe that 18 would be true today.

This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45


powers of congress

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
If the wihite male became a minority and applied these rules, they would suddenly become a lot more popular on the right.

I read the ruling, and I believe SCOTUS is correct.

1) First of all, SCOTUS only invalidated section 4 of the voting rights act.

2) The majority opinion is that out of date criteria were used to extend the VRA for another 25 years.

3) The majority opinion also indicates that SCOTUS would tend to be willing to uphold section 4 of the VRA, if newer standards were applied, instead of the outdated ones. Now it's up to Congress to determine those new standards, if any.

It's a good ruling, and it doesn't step on the toes of Congress.
 
It is the U.S. Constitution that mandates "50 states with 50 different rules affecting Federal elections." This was a timely and balanced ruling. Well done to the SCOTUS.:cool:

I knew you would be pleased. This may be good all around. You got what you wanted and it may be a wake up call on civil rights and maybe even spark a voting rights movement. Without question it will hurt the GOP with minority voters even more, despite their "outreach" to the colored folk :elephantf
 
I knew you would be pleased. This may be good all around. You got what you wanted and it may be a wake up call on civil rights and maybe even spark a voting rights movement. Without question it will hurt the GOP with minority voters even more, despite their "outreach" to the colored folk :elephantf

"Colored folk"? I didn't hear any Republicans use that term in this thread, but I believe I just heard you.

Race bait any?
 
It is the U.S. Constitution that mandates "50 states with 50 different rules affecting Federal elections." This was a timely and balanced ruling. Well done to the SCOTUS.:cool:

This SCOTUS CORRUPTUS just went against the 98 Senators who voted to renew this Act. True Fascism.
 
This SCOTUS CORRUPTUS just went against the 98 Senators who voted to renew this Act. True Fascism.

The only part SCOTUS struck down was section 4, because the criteria was outdated. In the ruling, SCOTUS indicated it would be willing to uphold it, if the criteria was according to today's times, and not that of 40 years ago.

I don't see a problem with this.
 
A SCOTUS Corruptus that knows this Congress couldn't grab its ass with both hands. If it was as simple as that, a technicality as I read you, why the need for Texas to jump headfirst back into a long and costly legal battle that they will lose again on its merits. The concern from me is a 27-9 CD remap for Repubs. Are there any words beyond egregious that fit? Attempts to limit voting with phony legal arguments and fake straw men. Is that what we have become? A truly Fascist SCOTUS Corruptus indeed!
The only part SCOTUS struck down was section 4, because the criteria was outdated. In the ruling, SCOTUS indicated it would be willing to uphold it, if the criteria was according to today's times, and not that of 40 years ago.

I don't see a problem with this.
 
I read the ruling, and I believe SCOTUS is correct.

1) First of all, SCOTUS only invalidated section 4 of the voting rights act.

2) The majority opinion is that out of date criteria were used to extend the VRA for another 25 years.

3) The majority opinion also indicates that SCOTUS would tend to be willing to uphold section 4 of the VRA, if newer standards were applied, instead of the outdated ones. Now it's up to Congress to determine those new standards, if any.

It's a good ruling, and it doesn't step on the toes of Congress.

progressive groups are calling for a new constitutional amendment that would guarantee and protect the the right to vote. do you have any objections to that proposal
 
"Colored folk"? I didn't hear any Republicans use that term in this thread, but I believe I just heard you.

Race bait any?

yeah, the GOP's treatment of Obama, this decision, attempts at voter suppression, etc. have nothing to do with race ... my bad ... please danarhea ... we don't know each other, but you should know that I'm going to raise the issue of racism (as Obama rarely does - can't because he's black perhaps), especially when it's right in front of you ... race baiting? LOL ...
 
Back
Top Bottom