Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:25:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional?  (Read 3404 times)
Frink
Lafayette53
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 703
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 26, 2010, 02:00:47 PM »
« edited: October 26, 2010, 02:03:08 PM by Foster »

I'm curious to hear the opinions of the forum on this one.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 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.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2010, 02:55:43 PM »

The Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 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.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 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)
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 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?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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!
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 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?
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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?
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
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2010, 01:08:25 PM »
« Edited: October 30, 2010, 01:13:37 PM by True Federalist »

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.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 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.
Logged
Frink
Lafayette53
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 703
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 13 queries.