Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2014, 04:34:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional?  (Read 2593 times)
Frink
Lafayette53
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

View Profile
« on: October 26, 2010, 02:00:47 pm »
Ignore

I'm curious to hear the opinions of the forum on this one.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2010, 02:03:08 pm by Foster »Logged

"Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance." - William O. Douglas
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2010, 02:54:25 pm »
Ignore

I'd lean towards yes, under the 15th Amendment, but it certainly would have been unconstitutional in 1789.
Logged

Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2010, 08:15:28 pm »
Ignore

I'd lean towards yes, under the 15th Amendment, but it certainly would have been unconstitutional in 1789.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2010, 02:55:43 pm »
Ignore

The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2010, 08:08:55 pm »
Ignore

The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times.

And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14206


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2010, 08:57:12 pm »
Ignore

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)
Logged

It is very advisable to examine and dissect the men of science for once, since they for their part are quite accustomed to laying bold hands on everything in the world, even the most venerable things, and taking them to pieces.

-Friedrich Nietzsche
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -6.43

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2010, 09:03:57 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2010, 09:09:11 pm »
Ignore

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!
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30588


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2010, 09:10:43 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged
beneficii
Full Member
***
Posts: 159


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2010, 03:15:51 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2010, 03:30:58 am »
Ignore

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?
I subscribe to the notion that under the terms of the US Constitution, a particular type of might makes right, and that people who don't subscribe to the notion should not consider themselves as friends of the US Constitution.

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.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2253


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2010, 11:18:18 am »
Ignore

One thing I'm wondering is why Arizona was targeted for preclearance in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26714
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 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.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 01:13:37 pm by True Federalist »Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14206


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2010, 04:50:58 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

It is very advisable to examine and dissect the men of science for once, since they for their part are quite accustomed to laying bold hands on everything in the world, even the most venerable things, and taking them to pieces.

-Friedrich Nietzsche
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2010, 03:24:08 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4418
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2010, 12:58:13 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A Republican - at least for a little while
Frink
Lafayette53
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2010, 12:23:56 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance." - William O. Douglas
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines