Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutional?

[Frink]

I'm curious to hear the opinions of the forum on this one.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

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

[Free Palestine]

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

[Vasall des Midas]

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

[Free Palestine]

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

And the Supreme Court is infallible, of course.

[The Mikado]

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)

[Senator Libertas]

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?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

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!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

[beneficii]

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.

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

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

[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.

[The Mikado]

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.

[Free Palestine]

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.

[Brandon H]

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.

[Frink]

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.