Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In Shelby County v. Holder 2013 the Court held that times have changed and that part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was no longer needed. They issued and advisory opinion in 2009 to a Congress controlled by Democrats and said that they need to modify it. But Pelosi and Reid ignored their warning.It seems like some answer to the question in the thread title could be inferred from what has happened in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. They removed the requirement that certain states had to get pre-authorization from the federal government before making changes involving voting policies, as a consequence of their prior history of racist voter disenfranchisement. Since then, most of those states have passed various laws which tend to disproportionately impact voting access for minorities. Some of the laws, like in N.C., were subsequently struck down for being explicitly racist. Other cases involving disenfranchisement this year are in the courts.
So, I surmise that if we overturned the Civil Rights Act we would see a similar pattern, with an increase in segregation of public accommodations in those states, as well as a return to outright discrimination in employment and other areas. It's conceivable that those trends might be less pronounced than with the VRA, because with voting rights some of the motivations are just partisan, rather than being explicitly racist, whereas no non-racist motivation really exists for re-instituting segregation or discrimination. But there's plenty of evidence for the existence of discrimination and prejudice even where the CRA makes it illegal, so you would expect at least some marginal increase if the CRA were overturned.
Obviously, all of this would hurt black people much worse than smug white liberals.
They could have handled it better; capitalism should have been preferred over Government for republicans.John Adams was a looney leftist in his day and wanted a central authority to dominate the nation. His “Alien and Sedition Acts” are the earliest example of the left wanting to suppress free speech and a free press. Thank God for states rights advocates Thomas Jefferson (wrote the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (wrote the Bill of Rights).
The Necessary and Proper Clause has been abused. Your quote is not relevant to the argument being presented.How is any clause in our federal Constitution unjust? It should be unconstitutional.The Necessary and Proper Clause has been abused by the federal courts and Congress. I believe in Locke’s social contract and the people of the states should be able to nullify unjustified legislation. John C. Marshall was wrong.Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. States and the People have no Cause for action. The People of every State ratified our federal Constitution.It was the protected opinion of the people of a state as per 9th and 10th Amendments.It wasn't necessary; our federal Constitution is clear.A Constitution with a 9th and 10th Amendments. When California entered the Union there was no fucked up 14th Amendment. That Amendment was passed by the Radical Republicans of an authoritarian regime.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
There is no conflict of law once it gets to federal Court.
What “Republicans” are you talking about? Jeffersonian? Gilded Age? 1980’s?They could have handled it better; capitalism should have been preferred over Government for republicans.John Adams was a looney leftist in his day and wanted a central authority to dominate the nation. His “Alien and Sedition Acts” are the earliest example of the left wanting to suppress free speech and a free press. Thank God for states rights advocates Thomas Jefferson (wrote the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (wrote the Bill of Rights).
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.The Necessary and Proper Clause has been abused. Your quote is not relevant to the argument being presented.How is any clause in our federal Constitution unjust? It should be unconstitutional.The Necessary and Proper Clause has been abused by the federal courts and Congress. I believe in Locke’s social contract and the people of the states should be able to nullify unjustified legislation. John C. Marshall was wrong.Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. States and the People have no Cause for action. The People of every State ratified our federal Constitution.It was the protected opinion of the people of a state as per 9th and 10th Amendments.It wasn't necessary; our federal Constitution is clear.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
There is no conflict of law once it gets to federal Court.
So you you feel the people cannot conduct themselves properly without Big Brother watching over them?It seems like some answer to the question in the thread title could be inferred from what has happened in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. They removed the requirement that certain states had to get pre-authorization from the federal government before making changes involving voting policies, as a consequence of their prior history of racist voter disenfranchisement. Since then, most of those states have passed various laws which tend to disproportionately impact voting access for minorities. Some of the laws, like in N.C., were subsequently struck down for being explicitly racist. Other cases involving disenfranchisement this year are in the courts.
So, I surmise that if we overturned the Civil Rights Act we would see a similar pattern, with an increase in segregation of public accommodations in those states, as well as a return to outright discrimination in employment and other areas. It's conceivable that those trends might be less pronounced than with the VRA, because with voting rights some of the motivations are just partisan, rather than being explicitly racist, whereas no non-racist motivation really exists for re-instituting segregation or discrimination. But there's plenty of evidence for the existence of discrimination and prejudice even where the CRA makes it illegal, so you would expect at least some marginal increase if the CRA were overturned.
Obviously, all of this would hurt black people much worse than smug white liberals.
sure; nearly every time an applied capitalism opportunity presents itself in our market based economy, the right wing eschews it for their socialism on a national basis, and a vacuum of special pleading regarding Spending having Any correlation whatsoever, with Revenue.What “Republicans” are you talking about? Jeffersonian? Gilded Age? 1980’s?They could have handled it better; capitalism should have been preferred over Government for republicans.John Adams was a looney leftist in his day and wanted a central authority to dominate the nation. His “Alien and Sedition Acts” are the earliest example of the left wanting to suppress free speech and a free press. Thank God for states rights advocates Thomas Jefferson (wrote the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (wrote the Bill of Rights).
Our natural rights supersede the rulings of the courts. Martin Luther King states as much in his now famous Letter From a Birmingham Jail.How is any clause in our federal Constitution unjust? It should be unconstitutional.The Necessary and Proper Clause has been abused by the federal courts and Congress. I believe in Locke’s social contract and the people of the states should be able to nullify unjustified legislation. John C. Marshall was wrong.Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. States and the People have no Cause for action. The People of every State ratified our federal Constitution.It was the protected opinion of the people of a state as per 9th and 10th Amendments.It wasn't necessary; our federal Constitution is clear.A Constitution with a 9th and 10th Amendments. When California entered the Union there was no fucked up 14th Amendment. That Amendment was passed by the Radical Republicans of an authoritarian regime.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
There is no conflict of law once it gets to federal Court.
Right wing socialism?sure; nearly every time an applied capitalism opportunity presents itself in our market based economy, the right wing eschews it for their socialism on a national basis, and a vacuum of special pleading regarding Spending having Any correlation whatsoever, with Revenue.What “Republicans” are you talking about? Jeffersonian? Gilded Age? 1980’s?They could have handled it better; capitalism should have been preferred over Government for republicans.John Adams was a looney leftist in his day and wanted a central authority to dominate the nation. His “Alien and Sedition Acts” are the earliest example of the left wanting to suppress free speech and a free press. Thank God for states rights advocates Thomas Jefferson (wrote the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (wrote the Bill of Rights).
What?
Better take a mirror outside...and find a hole in the ground...then put the mirror on your ass so you can notice the difference.Just highlighting who is dumbThat’s all you got? Grammar bitch because of my auto spell on computer?Your?Your dumb.Republicans would use it as an excuse to persecute gays, Muslims and MexicansIf we are really to become a nation of one people, than we need to become a nation that does not require the federal government to force us to get along. I absolutely believe that if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...we would get along together just fine. I know Democrats thrive on racism and racial divisions. If it were repealed the people that would be hurt most are the limousine liberals. Their ego would be crushed. It would be an admonition that the 1960’s are over...and we...as nation get along just fine. Liberal press constantly tries to divide Americans.
The Culture Of The Smug White Liberal | HuffPost
I know the difference between Your and You’re
So you you feel the people cannot conduct themselves properly without Big Brother watching over them?
Roberts was 100% correct.So you you feel the people cannot conduct themselves properly without Big Brother watching over them?
The historical record makes it pretty clear that the CRA is necessary, yes. Just like the events of the last few years demonstrate that Roberts' assessment of the necessity of the VRA was wrong. But I think you're also applying a strange standard. I presume that you wouldn't ask this question about laws against murder, or theft, or even traffic violations. Social enforcement of norms (whether via a legal regime or otherwise) are a pretty central component to human societies. Anti-discrimination law isn't fundamentally different. We determine that certain kinds of behavior are undesirable, and so we pass laws to try to reduce the occurrence of that undesirable behavior.
Historical record shows the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are no longer necessary. Social norms change. Who, by the way, are “we?” Your making a big assumption that the courts are always on the side of the majority of the people.The people of California spoke at the ballot box and the Court nullified their vote and the will of the majority. Also, yes I would ask question about laws regarding murder, theft, or traffic violations. Those rest within the realm of state law and the people of those respective states. The courts have no business dealing with “social enforcement of norms.” Different states have different norms. That’s “common law.”So you you feel the people cannot conduct themselves properly without Big Brother watching over them?
The historical record makes it pretty clear that the CRA is necessary, yes. Just like the events of the last few years demonstrate that Roberts' assessment of the necessity of the VRA was wrong. But I think you're also applying a strange standard. I presume that you wouldn't ask this question about laws against murder, or theft, or even traffic violations. Social enforcement of norms (whether via a legal regime or otherwise) are a pretty central component to human societies. Anti-discrimination law isn't fundamentally different. We determine that certain kinds of behavior are undesirable, and so we pass laws to try to reduce the occurrence of that undesirable behavior.
natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.Our natural rights supersede the rulings of the courts. Martin Luther King states as much in his now famous Letter From a Birmingham Jail.How is any clause in our federal Constitution unjust? It should be unconstitutional.The Necessary and Proper Clause has been abused by the federal courts and Congress. I believe in Locke’s social contract and the people of the states should be able to nullify unjustified legislation. John C. Marshall was wrong.Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. States and the People have no Cause for action. The People of every State ratified our federal Constitution.It was the protected opinion of the people of a state as per 9th and 10th Amendments.It wasn't necessary; our federal Constitution is clear.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
There is no conflict of law once it gets to federal Court.
Why do we need it in 2018? You don’t think people could get along without it? Or is because liberals need the specter of racism to constantly hang over our nation so they can push their socialist agenda?Right wingers want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. I didn't believe they could be so hateful and crazy the first time I heard they wanted to do that, but I believe it now.
Those laws DON’T protect us, moron.Right wingers want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. I didn't believe they could be so hateful and crazy the first time I heard they wanted to do that, but I believe it now.
Umm, what happens when whites become the minority?
Then we will be the minority, and glad that those laws protect us. I hope the law gets a little stronger before then, though.
If we are really to become a nation of one people, than we need to become a nation that does not require the federal government to force us to get along. I absolutely believe that if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...we would get along together just fine. I know Democrats thrive on racism and racial divisions. If it were repealed the people that would be hurt most are the limousine liberals. Their ego would be crushed. It would be an admonition that the 1960’s are over...and we...as nation get along just fine. Liberal press constantly tries to divide Americans.
The Culture Of The Smug White Liberal | HuffPost
