• 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

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...

No, its why it was ruled unconstitutional.

Republican = Racism is a ginned partisan meme, a construct and the majority of the court saw through it.

The Democrats just changed the plantation electing for a massive vote buying scheme that fostered generational dependence, they never abandoned it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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laws which simply should not be on the books, but we can't have the Court throwing them out because it thinks they're no longer applicable -- that's for Congress to decide.
Click to expand...

the court can throw out any federal law it wishes, according to the current, mindset of america....congress creates law, the court decides if they are legal..

according to James Madison the states are the final authority on any law they believe to be unconstitutional.
 
apdst said:
I guess you're ready to bring back the Dred Scott ruling as well as Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

I guess I have to do this again:

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is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.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...

The Court didn't rule the law is unConstitutional, just outdated. That's not a legal basis for throwing out a law.
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...

whose job is it write legeslation to create jobs?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the court can throw out any federal law it wishes, according to the current, mindset of america....congress creates law, the court decides if they are legal..
Click to expand...

I don't care what the mindset of America is, I'm saying they needed to cite at least the barest hint of a Constitutional reason. Otherwise, any law -- including the Constitution -- is up for grabs on the basis of age.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't know what law you're talking about, but this one was passed in 2006 and challenged shortly thereafter. Your claim that "it was simply judged out-of-date" is absurd.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's. The reason we have 3 coequal branches of government.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
whose job is it write legeslation to create jobs?
Click to expand...

It's the Legislative Branch's " job " to write legislation.

The fact you think their job includes "creating jobs " speaks volumes to your lack of economic knowledge.

We tried that already. "Stimulus" was a miserable failure.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I don't care what the mindset of America is, I'm saying they needed to cite at least the barest hint of a Constitutional reason. Otherwise, any law -- including the Constitution -- is up for grabs on the basis of age.
Click to expand...

well ist obvious they dont think they need to explain anything....and that is the problem with the court.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I don't care what the mindset of America is, I'm saying they needed to cite at least the barest hint of a Constitutional reason. Otherwise, any law -- including the Constitution -- is up for grabs on the basis of age.
Click to expand...
The power to regulate elections is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment. So the question really is, what's the Constitutional reason for violating that?
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fenton, the GOP has cornered the stupid vote. So no worries there. False narratives? Hardly my friend. People do want jobs, and while neither party has done nearly enough to create them (and Republicans have done what they can to prevent the President from succeeding in creating them), it's the GOP that has voted almost 40 times to kill ACA (at $2 million a shot and knowing full well they can't do it), instead of coming up with jobs bills. And, yes, Dems are moving to TX and they and other demographic changes may just turn TX into a Blue state ... not alas, but rather at last ...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They aren't coequal, and the Court does not have the authority to discard a law it thinks is no longer relevant.
Click to expand...
It discarded a law passed in 2006 that was never relevant.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They aren't coequal, and the Court does not have the authority to discard a law it thinks is no longer relevant.
Click to expand...

yes, they are all three equal in power.......know as a separation of powers, ..........or federalism a separation of state and federal power
 
windowdressing said:
Fenton, the GOP has cornered the stupid vote. So no worries there. False narratives? Hardly my friend. People do want jobs, and while neither party has done nearly enough to create them (and Republicans have done what they can to prevent the President from succeeding in creating them), it's the GOP that has voted almost 40 times to kill ACA (at $2 million a shot and knowing full well they can't do it), instead of coming up with jobs bills. And, yes, Dems are moving to TX and they and other demographic changes may just turn TX into a Blue state ... not alas, but rather at last ...
Click to expand...

Why is the government refusing to follow the ND model where concentrating on domestic energy has resulted in an economic boom to the state and now has even Walmart competing for employees to the tune of $17/hr starting wages? There are a number of areas where the government can encourage economic growth without spending a dime to do so...

Good afternoon bj. I trust the wedding went well..
 
Taylor said:
The power to regulate elections is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment. So the question really is, what's the Constitutional reason for violating that?
Click to expand...

Protecting the 14th Amendment rights of the voters to equal protection under the law would be my first guess. I'm sure there was a 15th Amendment aspect as well.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, they are all three equal in power.......know as a separation of powers, ..........or federalism a separation of state and federal power
Click to expand...

They are not in any way equal. Membership / election go by entirely different methods, and their respective jurisdictions or functions are not equal.
 
Fenton said:
It's the Legislative Branch's " job " to write legislation.

The fact you think their job includes "creating jobs " speaks volumes to your lack of economic knowledge.

We tried that already. "Stimulus" was a miserable failure.
Click to expand...

to the degree that it failed to do more, the stimulus, a joint Republican/Democrat venture, still prevented us from sliding into Bush's depression. Are you sure it's the other poster who lacks "economic knowledge?" What the real failure has been has been GOP House members committing themselves to making sure that Obama fails, and screw the rest of us ... a rather short-sighted view, and it cost them the election in 2012 ... the people were actually paying attention ...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Protecting the 14th Amendment rights of the voters to equal protection under the law would be my first guess. I'm sure there was a 15th Amendment aspect as well.
Click to expand...
We only want to protect the 14th amendment rights of voters in 15 states? Hardly seems fair to people in the other 35.
 
windowdressing said:
to the degree that it failed to do more, the stimulus, a joint Republican/Democrat venture, still prevented us from sliding into Bush's depression. Are you sure it's the other poster who lacks "economic knowledge?" What the real failure has been has been GOP House members committing themselves to making sure that Obama fails, and screw the rest of us ... a rather short-sighted view, and it cost them the election in 2012 ... the people were actually paying attention ...
Click to expand...

How many non-democrats/socialists voted in favor of the stimulus? To infer that it was in some way bi-partisan is being a bit disingenuous...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They are not in any way equal. Membership / election go by entirely different methods, and their respective jurisdictions or functions are not equal.
Click to expand...

my friend, you really need to bone up on american government, we have 3 equal branches of government .

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined powers to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Taylor said:
It discarded a law passed in 2006 that was never relevant.
Click to expand...
the voting rights act was never relevent? the people who took part in the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march would disagree with you.
Click to expand...
The people who took part in the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march would laugh at you for thinking that the voting rights act was passed in 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom