|
Title: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Frink on October 26, 2010, 02:00:47 PM I'm curious to hear the opinions of the forum on this one.
Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: tpfkaw on October 26, 2010, 02:54:25 PM I'd lean towards yes, under the 15th Amendment, but it certainly would have been unconstitutional in 1789.
Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Free Palestine on October 26, 2010, 08:15:28 PM I'd lean towards yes, under the 15th Amendment, but it certainly would have been unconstitutional in 1789. Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: minionofmidas on October 29, 2010, 02:55:43 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times.
Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Free Palestine on October 29, 2010, 08:08:55 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: The Mikado on October 29, 2010, 08:57:12 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Well, it IS supposed to be the final authority on the issue. That doesn't mean you can disagree with the Supremes as long as you remember you're just some dude and they're, you know, the Supreme Court. (My feeling towards, say, Citizens United: I disagree, but you're the Supreme Court and I'm not) Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on October 29, 2010, 09:03:57 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Well, it IS supposed to be the final authority on the issue. That doesn't mean you can disagree with the Supremes as long as you remember you're just some dude and they're, you know, the Supreme Court. (My feeling towards, say, Citizens United: I disagree, but you're the Supreme Court and I'm not) So you subscribe to the notion that might makes right? Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: tpfkaw on October 29, 2010, 09:09:11 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Well, it IS supposed to be the final authority on the issue. That doesn't mean you can disagree with the Supremes as long as you remember you're just some dude and they're, you know, the Supreme Court. (My feeling towards, say, Citizens United: I disagree, but you're the Supreme Court and I'm not) Il Duce is always right! Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 29, 2010, 09:10:43 PM I'd lean towards yes, under the 15th Amendment, but it certainly would have been unconstitutional in 1789. So was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 therefore unconstitutional? Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: beneficii on October 30, 2010, 03:15:51 AM I'd lean towards yes, under the 15th Amendment, but it certainly would have been unconstitutional in 1789. So was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 therefore unconstitutional? There were doubts until the adoption of the 14th amendment. With the 14th's adoption, however, those doubts were removed. Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: minionofmidas on October 30, 2010, 03:30:58 AM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Well, it IS supposed to be the final authority on the issue. That doesn't mean you can disagree with the Supremes as long as you remember you're just some dude and they're, you know, the Supreme Court. (My feeling towards, say, Citizens United: I disagree, but you're the Supreme Court and I'm not) So you subscribe to the notion that might makes right? But srsly... the act is far too complex for the constitutionality of all its provisions to be readily apparent to some kids on the internet. The long history of court decisions on it reflects that. Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on October 30, 2010, 11:18:18 AM One thing I'm wondering is why Arizona was targeted for preclearance in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 30, 2010, 01:08:25 PM Probably a combination of having practices adversely affecting Hispanic voting rights along with payback for being the home state of Goldwater. Arizona's recent battle with the Feds over immigration is merely the latest in a long history of anti-Hispanic legislation going back to when Arizona was a Territory.
Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: The Mikado on October 30, 2010, 04:50:58 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Well, it IS supposed to be the final authority on the issue. That doesn't mean you can disagree with the Supremes as long as you remember you're just some dude and they're, you know, the Supreme Court. (My feeling towards, say, Citizens United: I disagree, but you're the Supreme Court and I'm not) So you subscribe to the notion that might makes right? Well, yes, to some extent, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that a group of people that have spent decades of their lives obsessing over precedents dating back to common law tradition and have read thousands of opinions from Blackstone to Breyer are more qualified to render judgment on whether something is or is not constitutional than I am. Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Free Palestine on October 31, 2010, 03:24:08 PM The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times. And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course. Well, it IS supposed to be the final authority on the issue. That doesn't mean you can disagree with the Supremes as long as you remember you're just some dude and they're, you know, the Supreme Court. (My feeling towards, say, Citizens United: I disagree, but you're the Supreme Court and I'm not) So you subscribe to the notion that might makes right? Well, yes, to some extent, but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that a group of people that have spent decades of their lives obsessing over precedents dating back to common law tradition and have read thousands of opinions from Blackstone to Breyer are more qualified to render judgment on whether something is or is not constitutional than I am. It's the actual text of the Constitution that matters the most, and historical context. Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Brandon H on November 09, 2010, 12:58:13 AM I would say certain parts of it are unconstitutional. Of course I have bias since I live a state that has a pre-clearance requirement, and someone who may end up in a minority-majority district after redistricting takes place.
Title: Re: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional? Post by: Frink on November 10, 2010, 12:23:56 PM I would say certain parts of it are unconstitutional. Of course I have bias since I live a state that has a pre-clearance requirement, and someone who may end up in a minority-majority district after redistricting takes place. Pre-Clearance and the redistricting was actually the part of the bill I was interested in the constitutionality of. |