The Right to Vote: "An American Entitlement"

[Wry Catcher]

See:

Post-argument commentary: Voting rights are an American entitlement : SCOTUSblog

Discuss

 

[Wry Catcher]

See: Court to return to constitutionality of Voting Rights Act: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

For the "plain English" blog on this issue.

 

[Sallow]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's still racial discrimination in voting?

Wow.

The things I learn at USMB

 

[Sallow]

There's still racial discrimination in voting?

Wow.

The things I learn at USMB

 

[martybegan]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

Invalid premise. The special requirements are based on past practices and the evidence (hours wait to vote in some jurisdictions, efforts to suppress votes in 2012) suggests the Right to vote is under attack in a number of States.

 

[Sallow]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

You should be able to walk into a voting center and vote.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only real example of racial discrimination in voting is how Democrat Inner City political machines cast votes for blacks, that's the last vestige of Democrat racial discrimination in voting

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

/thread

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

You should be able to walk into a voting center and vote.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal.

You should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal

 

[editec]

Here we go..another rhetorical debate.

What is an entitlement?

What is a right?

 

[martybegan]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

Invalid premise. The special requirements are based on past practices and the evidence (hours wait to vote in some jurisdictions, efforts to suppress votes in 2012) suggests the Right to vote is under attack in a number of States.

The data that part of the law is based on is over 3 decades old. You also have to add in the fact that disadvantaged voters have far more access to legal remedies than in the 60's and 70's. The only thing that would be struck down is the "pre-clearance" requirement, which is on the ragged edge of unconsitutionality as it interferes with the state's own voting procedures, not just federal votes. If someone finds some funny business, the VRA can still be used in a lawsuit, and considering the access one has to civil rights groups, that is not an issue today.

Yes, it was needed in the 60's as the southerners did it to themselves by igonring the consitution for 90 years. But section 5 was a temporary measure, and congress didnt do anything to improve it when it just extended it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

Invalid premise. The special requirements are based on past practices and the evidence (hours wait to vote in some jurisdictions, efforts to suppress votes in 2012) suggests the Right to vote is under attack in a number of States.

The data that part of the law is based on is over 3 decades old. You also have to add in the fact that disadvantaged voters have far more access to legal remedies than in the 60's and 70's. The only thing that would be struck down is the "pre-clearance" requirement, which is on the ragged edge of unconsitutionality as it interferes with the state's own voting procedures, not just federal votes. If someone finds some funny business, the VRA can still be used in a lawsuit, and considering the access one has to civil rights groups, that is not an issue today.

Yes, it was needed in the 60's as the southerners did it to themselves by igonring the consitution for 90 years. But section 5 was a temporary measure, and congress didnt do anything to improve it when it just extended it.

The remedy you suggest is no remedy at all. The election is over when the law suit is filed. Why not try just for once to be honest?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dana Milbank: Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles - The Washington Post

 

[martybegan]

Invalid premise. The special requirements are based on past practices and the evidence (hours wait to vote in some jurisdictions, efforts to suppress votes in 2012) suggests the Right to vote is under attack in a number of States.

The data that part of the law is based on is over 3 decades old. You also have to add in the fact that disadvantaged voters have far more access to legal remedies than in the 60's and 70's. The only thing that would be struck down is the "pre-clearance" requirement, which is on the ragged edge of unconsitutionality as it interferes with the state's own voting procedures, not just federal votes. If someone finds some funny business, the VRA can still be used in a lawsuit, and considering the access one has to civil rights groups, that is not an issue today.

Yes, it was needed in the 60's as the southerners did it to themselves by igonring the consitution for 90 years. But section 5 was a temporary measure, and congress didnt do anything to improve it when it just extended it.

The remedy you suggest is no remedy at all. The election is over when the law suit is filed. Why not try just for once to be honest?

The entire concept of federalism is predecated on the soverginity of lower levels of government. The problem here is that once you are on "the list" it is nearly impossible to get off of it, even if the people who originally performed the voter suppression are dead and buried. Congress could have cleaned up the law, instead it punted and just extended it for 25 years. Section 5 was never intended as a permanent change to current methods of voting, but as a corrective action to decades of institutional racism.

If this is not overturned, then at least tehe court has to force congress to fix the law to update it to modern times. If a locality can show that institutional racism is no more in said locality, it should be taken off the preclearance list. Voters would still have the same protections everyone else has outside the preclearance list.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The data that part of the law is based on is over 3 decades old. You also have to add in the fact that disadvantaged voters have far more access to legal remedies than in the 60's and 70's. The only thing that would be struck down is the "pre-clearance" requirement, which is on the ragged edge of unconsitutionality as it interferes with the state's own voting procedures, not just federal votes. If someone finds some funny business, the VRA can still be used in a lawsuit, and considering the access one has to civil rights groups, that is not an issue today.

Yes, it was needed in the 60's as the southerners did it to themselves by igonring the consitution for 90 years. But section 5 was a temporary measure, and congress didnt do anything to improve it when it just extended it.

The remedy you suggest is no remedy at all. The election is over when the law suit is filed. Why not try just for once to be honest?

The entire concept of federalism is predecated on the soverginity of lower levels of government. The problem here is that once you are on "the list" it is nearly impossible to get off of it, even if the people who originally performed the voter suppression are dead and buried. Congress could have cleaned up the law, instead it punted and just extended it for 25 years. Section 5 was never intended as a permanent change to current methods of voting, but as a corrective action to decades of institutional racism.

If this is not overturned, then at least tehe court has to force congress to fix the law to update it to modern times. If a locality can show that institutional racism is no more in said locality, it should be taken off the preclearance list. Voters would still have the same protections everyone else has outside the preclearance list.

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

 

[martybegan]

The remedy you suggest is no remedy at all. The election is over when the law suit is filed. Why not try just for once to be honest?

The entire concept of federalism is predecated on the soverginity of lower levels of government. The problem here is that once you are on "the list" it is nearly impossible to get off of it, even if the people who originally performed the voter suppression are dead and buried. Congress could have cleaned up the law, instead it punted and just extended it for 25 years. Section 5 was never intended as a permanent change to current methods of voting, but as a corrective action to decades of institutional racism.

If this is not overturned, then at least tehe court has to force congress to fix the law to update it to modern times. If a locality can show that institutional racism is no more in said locality, it should be taken off the preclearance list. Voters would still have the same protections everyone else has outside the preclearance list.

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kagan and Sotomayor "Battling" Scalia.

Libruls have a distorted view of American politics

 

[Truthmatters]

we will NEVER allow you to keep Americans from voting.


this country will hit the streets man woman and child if you try to keep Americans from voting.

BE WARNED republicans.

Your actions will not stand