SCOTUS: Part of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional

[Peter1469]

Power over voting back to the states. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/court-past-voting-discrimination-no-longer-held/)

Basically, the feds took control over voting issues in 9 states. Today the majority says it has been long enough.

It was a 5-4 on conservative / liberal lines.

[Mainecoons]

Of course, the liberals always want to move power from the states, where it belongs in a Republic, to the central government where it can be abused time and time again.

Nothing new there.

[KC]

Power over voting back to the states. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/court-past-voting-discrimination-no-longer-held/)

Basically, the feds took control over voting issues in 9 states. Today the majority says it has been long enough.

It was a 5-4 on conservative / liberal lines.

Good to hear it. Yes, I think states should be in charge of their own voting laws.

[Mister D]

Good to hear it. Yes, I think states should be in charge of their own voting laws.

Among much else.

[patrickt]

They are correct. But the racists will scream bloody murder.

[Cigar]

In my opinion, the only reason why anyone would be against ... "if you're simply an American", why one Voting Rule can't be good enough for everyone. Why on earth, one state would feel they need different rules than another state for doing the same exact thing ... is beyond me. The reason why we got ourselves in this in mess in first place was because the rules weren't the same for all Americans.

... and around and around we go ... again.

[Cigar]

They are correct. But the racists will scream bloody murder.

... and the losers will just ... scream and bleed.

[TheInternet]

In my opinion, the only reason why anyone would be against ... "if you're simply an American", why one Voting Rule can't be good enough for everyone. Why on earth, one state would feel they need different rules than another state for doing the same exact thing ... is beyond me. The reason why we got ourselves in this in mess in first place was because the rules weren't the same for all Americans.

... and around and around we go ... again.

The decentralization of power is good for everybody. States exist and have rights to be a check on federal government.

[Private Pickle]

In my opinion, the only reason why anyone would be against ... "if you're simply an American", why one Voting Rule can't be good enough for everyone. Why on earth, one state would feel they need different rules than another state for doing the same exact thing ... is beyond me. The reason why we got ourselves in this in mess in first place was because the rules weren't the same for all Americans.

... and around and around we go ... again.

Sigh....the idea is to allow the States to create a moral and legal environment that is based on the citizens of that State... Don't like it in your State? There are 49 others to freely choose from and move to unhindered. We know that you think people should be told what to think and have your political leanings forced upon them but that notion is contrary to the foundation this country was based upon. Sorry.

[Mainecoons]

Most of the libs on this board, along with the winos that the Dems haul to the polls, can relax. Literacy tests are still illegal!

:rofl:

[Ransom]

Sotomayor a known racist so her vote on this predicted and appropriately overruled.

[Mainecoons]

Sotomayer is exactly why we can't afford to let the Democrats appoint another Supreme Court justice anytime soon.

[jillian]

Power over voting back to the states. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/court-past-voting-discrimination-no-longer-held/)

Basically, the feds took control over voting issues in 9 states. Today the majority says it has been long enough.

It was a 5-4 on conservative / liberal lines.

it wasn't unconstitutional.

but this court eviscerated the part of it that makes it enforceable.

they should be ashamed.

[jillian]

Sotomayer is exactly why we can't afford to let the Democrats appoint another Supreme Court justice anytime soon.

that's funny... i was just thinking that alito and thomas are proof positive that there should never be another republican president.

[Ravi]

This will really help the GOP get the non-white vote.

[KC]

This will really help the GOP get the non-white vote.

Not quite sure what the GOP has to do with it...

[jillian]

This will really help the GOP get the non-white vote.

yes, i'm sure the people who had firehoses turned on them in order to register to vote in the first place, are very grateful.

schwerner, cheney and goodman are rolling over in their graves.

[jillian]

Sotomayor a known racist so her vote on this predicted and appropriately overruled.

that's really funny....

anything else you want to make up?

[Mainecoons]

Yeah, no doubt the British are still pissed about losing the revolutionary war too.

[Peter1469]

Basically, the Feds can take control over these voting issues if a state abuses their authority- but that should not last forever.

[zelmo1234]

The last incodent of voter intimidation that I can remember is this?

http://www.google.com/search?q=black+panther+voter+intimidation&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TinKUcO-GNHtqQHx5YBw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=479

Attn General Holder did not think it shoudl be prosicuted? Because it helped the Democrats?

Can you blame the states for wanting to control their own vote!

[ptif219]

it wasn't unconstitutional.

but this court eviscerated the part of it that makes it enforceable.

they should be ashamed.

They did the right thing. Liberals don't like it because it will slow their voter fraud

[Cigar]

Most of the libs on this board, along with the winos that the Dems haul to the polls, can relax. Literacy tests are still illegal!

:rofl:

The best thing that can ever happen for Progressives and Democrats, is for people like you to continue doing what you've always done. It's worked just fine thus far. I like my view and I hope you like yours, because demographics dictates the view ain't going to change. Just keep on insulting minorities and guess who will become on.

Personally, I agree with your approach.

All you need to do is look at how long people where willing to stand in line, just to shove a Presidential election clean up the ass of Republicans. :)

[Mister D]

Many white voters stayed home realizing they aren't spoken for. The GOP should do more to attract them.

[Cigar]

Many white voters stayed home realizing they aren't spoken for. The GOP should do more to attract them.

What ... screw more?

Too late ... Leroy is now dating her and she's now and making Mixed babies for the cause.

[Ransom]

Cigar is either 'we won we won' or 'wait until next election'. Depends on the day.

[Mister D]

Cigar is either 'we won we won' or 'wait until next election'. Depends on the day.

It will come as a rude shock when white folks stop paying the bills.

[Cigar]

Cigar is either 'we won we won' or 'wait until next election'. Depends on the day.

Don't worry ... you have "W" to remember :)

[Cigar]

It will come as a rude shock when white folks stop paying the bills.

Give me a call when they do ... in the mean time .... :)

[jillian]

They did the right thing. Liberals don't like it because it will slow their voter fraud

no. wingnuts like it because it will make it easier to return to keeping black people from voting.

so stop the 'voter fraud' lies. the only voter fraud that's been proven was by the GOP. by why let facts get in the way.

[Peter1469]

no. wingnuts like it because it will make it easier to return to keeping black people from voting.

so stop the 'voter fraud' lies. the only voter fraud that's been proven was by the GOP. by why let facts get in the way.

And if states start to actually prevent classes of people to vote, the federal government can step in again. This ruling basically says the fed has to give the power back to states if the grievances are long history.

[jillian]

And if states start to actually prevent classes of people to vote, the federal government can step in again. This ruling basically says the fed has to give the power back to states if the grievances are long history.

yeah, AFTER the election, i'm sure.

the states aren't who should HAVE power.... at least not over that. the whole point was for them NOT to have power.

but this is what the right wanted... states rights to re-create the pre-brown v bd of ed south.

given what they're doing in michigan... and in texas and all over the "red" states, this is the last thing they should be trusted with... the securing of FEDERAL rights.

[Cigar]

And if states start to actually prevent classes of people to vote, the federal government can step in again. This ruling basically says the fed has to give the power back to states if the grievances are long history.

We've already seen what those states want to do and it's going to bite then in the ass.

There's a reason why there are long line in minority districts and not in others.

The Video's don't lie.

[Peter1469]

yeah, AFTER the election, i'm sure.

the states aren't who should HAVE power.... at least not over that. the whole point was for them NOT to have power.

but this is what the right wanted... states rights to re-create the pre-brown v bd of ed south.

given what they're doing in michigan... and in texas and all over the "red" states, this is the last thing they should be trusted with... the securing of FEDERAL rights.

Then we need to change the Constitution so the states don't have that power. Which of course I am against. I want more power pushed to the States.

[jillian]

Then we need to change the Constitution so the states don't have that power. Which of course I am against. I want more power pushed to the States.

they did... it's called the constitution.

that's why they got rid of the articles of confederation.

the south lost this battle during the civil war.

and there's a reason it took federal troops to integrate southern schools.....

and it's because the only time people want "states' rights' is to violate federally protected ones with impunity... like the scum passing laws that violate the right to reproductive choice.

and you'll forgive me if i sound a little put out tonight. but i used to respect the supreme court. between this, citizens united and the fact that the chamber of commerce has prevailed in 10 out of 13 cases in which they filed an amicus, i've pretty much had it.

samuel alito makes faces while a senior judge reads her dissent...

they've lost their way. and because of the court appointments, their anti-female and anti-minority BS, i can't ever vote for a republican again... and yes, that ticks me off, because i used to have some i liked.

[Agravan]

What part of the 10th Amendment is difficult for you libs to understand?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Is it your contention that this was nullified by the War of Northern Aggression?

[ptif219]

no. wingnuts like it because it will make it easier to return to keeping black people from voting.

so stop the 'voter fraud' lies. the only voter fraud that's been proven was by the GOP. by why let facts get in the way.

They are not lies

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/30/poll-worker-who-voted-for-obama-multiple-times-convicted-of-voting-fraud-73217



Surely, you recall Melowese Richardson, the Democratic poll worker in the critical battleground state of Ohio who may have voted for Barack Obama up to six times in November. Upon being charged, she vowed to fight (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/02/10/nonexistent-voter-fraud-surfaces-in-critical-battleground-state-of-ohio-19479) “for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States.”
Well, she gave up the fight in short order.
With little media fanfare, it was announced Tuesday that Richardson pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting – including voting three times for a relative who has been in a coma since 2003 – in exchange for prosecutors dropping four other illegal voting charges, according to Cincinnati.com.
Richardson acknowledged in November that she voted by absentee ballot and then again at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted, according to Cincinnati’s Channel 9.

[jillian]

They are not lies

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/30/poll-worker-who-voted-for-obama-multiple-times-convicted-of-voting-fraud-73217

yes i know what the allegation was.

now the real voter fraud

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/06/the-real-gop-voter-fraud-employees-admit-forging-voter-registration-forms/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/20/3462110/state-investigators-never-interviewed.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/11/26/florida-republicans-admit-voter-fraud-subterfuge-gop-victory.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/colin-small-charges_n_3007443.html

[zelmo1234]

yes i know what the allegation was.

now the real voter fraud

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/06/the-real-gop-voter-fraud-employees-admit-forging-voter-registration-forms/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/20/3462110/state-investigators-never-interviewed.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/11/26/florida-republicans-admit-voter-fraud-subterfuge-gop-victory.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/colin-small-charges_n_3007443.html

Yes there is voter fruad? But the real problem is not in the south it is in the Rust belt!

I give you the city of Cleveland?

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/05/investigations_recommend_135_c.html

[Cigar]

:rollseyes:

I think the SCOTUS have done Progressives a favor. Sometimes people need a kick in the balls to remind them that they have balls. When GOP went out of it's way to make in more difficult for Blacks to Vote, they responded with record turnout. As much as the Republicans / GOP try to turn back the clock, the more it will be revealed that their time has passed. I personally hope Republicans keep doing what they are doing and don't change one single thing.

So far, everything the Republicans / GOP has done, has helped Democrats move forward.

It maybe long and full of effort, but what's new?

:coffee2:

[zelmo1234]

Or more likely it will be har=der for the dems to use theire policy of vote early and often, and only legal US citizens will be able to vote!

Districts will be changed and who know now some of those safe republicans might just ahve to work to keep thier seats!

[Cigar]

Keep doing what you're doing GOP ... because it's WORKING :thumbsup:

[zelmo1234]

Keep doing what you're doing GOP ... because it's WORKING:thumbsup:

Only when we dont' run Rino's

We have 30 Gov's

Control that house or Senate or both in 41 states.

Handed the Denms the largest Mid term defeat in 2010 and removed the Presidents Coat tailes in the 2012 election!

And Now look at the Dems! Everytime you turn around they were abusins power or lying to the American people.

The President is underwater in his popularity by 11 points. and nearly 70% of the people think the country under democrat leadership is heading in the wrong direction!

And while the Democrat s hold the whitehouse, the priesident is already a lame duck!

Yes Republicans keep up the good fight!

[jillian]

Only when we dont' run Rino's

We have 30 Gov's

Control that house or Senate or both in 41 states.

Handed the Denms the largest Mid term defeat in 2010 and removed the Presidents Coat tailes in the 2012 election!

And Now look at the Dems! Everytime you turn around they were abusins power or lying to the American people.

The President is underwater in his popularity by 11 points. and nearly 70% of the people think the country under democrat leadership is heading in the wrong direction!

And while the Democrat s hold the whitehouse, the priesident is already a lame duck!

Yes Republicans keep up the good fight!

you understand you've probably overplayed your hand.

your boys lied and said they were running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. yet they've done the rightwingnut thing, victimized women, minorities and working people.

ramming through bill after bill implementing draconian anti-choice laws that violate the constitution isn't going to help them when they say stupid, imbecilic things like "rape kits clean you out".

yeah, keep it up.

[Ransom]

you understand you've probably overplayed your hand.

No concern whether you've overplayed yours....Jillian?


your boys lied and said they were running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. yet they've done the rightwingnut thing, victimized women, minorities and working people.

You've been convinced by Rachael and Chris and your sheepherders that you're a lil lamb and thus a big victim. Your woe is me whining here proof they've pulled the wool over your eyes before shearing you and putting you to pasture to graze on whatever manure they feed you.


ramming through bill after bill implementing draconian anti-choice laws that violate the constitution isn't going to help them when they say stupid, imbecilic things like "rape kits clean you out".

Draconian? Look what hysterics they've caused.


yeah, keep it up.

Mary had a lil lamb, her name was Jillian.

[zelmo1234]

you understand you've probably overplayed your hand.

your boys lied and said they were running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. yet they've done the rightwingnut thing, victimized women, minorities and working people.

ramming through bill after bill implementing draconian anti-choice laws that violate the constitution isn't going to help them when they say stupid, imbecilic things like "rape kits clean you out".

yeah, keep it up.

You wouldn't mind linking to some of thos draconian laws that we have been passing against minorities and Women would you?

[Trinnity]

Of course obama and holder are butt hurt over this. Makes it a little harder to steal elections.

[zelmo1234]

I see Texas is now implementing it's voter ID laws that howlder said were no good!

I say good for them, You should be a citizen to vote

[Ransom]

You wouldn't mind linking to some of thos draconian laws that we have been passing against minorities and Women would you?

Are you seriously gonna ask Jillian to link to or reference her nonsense. Walking talking points don't use links.

[zelmo1234]

^^^^ My bad, a liberals has spoken so let it be written, so let it be done!

[nic34]

you understand you've probably overplayed your hand.

your boys lied and said they were running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. yet they've done the rightwingnut thing, victimized women, minorities and working people.

ramming through bill after bill implementing draconian anti-choice laws that violate the constitution isn't going to help them when they say stupid, imbecilic things like "rape kits clean you out".

yeah, keep it up.

Way over played. The VRA is still in place, voting laws can still be challenged after they are proposed.

However, the Gopers aren't going to gain much love from minority voters over this and those "purple" states are likely to turn blue permanently very soon ....

Thanks repubs.

[zelmo1234]

Not aware of many Pruble states in the South. There is Florida but by democratic voter fruad it should help the republicans not the democrats.

[Mainecoons]

Yes, they're going to feel very blue as more and more of them stand in Obama's unemployment lines or lose their full time jobs thanks to ObamaCare and the amnesty bill.

You must be a government "worker" else you wouldn't be spending your work days posting nonsense on an internet message board. Or maybe you're one of Obama's unemployed/underemployed victims who just can't quite figure out what happened to him and why?

:grin:

[nic34]

Why don't you just keep your mind on something you know about coonz, like sleeping.....

[Chris]

Didn't see this reported yet...

The Liberal Race Card Is Played Out (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/26/the_liberal_race_card_is_played_out_118977.html)


Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He’s a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He’s also a coward, a bigot, a liar, and a textbook example of plantation progressivism.

On Tuesday, Winkler took to Twitter to rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an onerous section of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 ruling overturned an unconstitutional requirement that states win federal preclearance approval of any changes to their election laws and procedures. Winkler fumed: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

After being called out by conservative social media users for his cheap attack on Clarence Thomas, Winkler then revealed his true color: yellow. He deleted the tweet (captured for posterity at my Twitter curation site, twitchy.com) and pleaded ignorance.

“I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he sniveled. “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues,” he protested.

Holding a black man to a different intellectual standard based on his skin color. Accusing a non-white conservative of collectivist race traitorism. Employing one of the most infamous, overused epithets against minority conservatives in the Democratic lexicon. “Apologizing,” but disclaiming responsibility. Sorry . . . that he got caught.

Just another day at the left-wing racist office....

[Ransom]

Way over played. The VRA is still in place, voting laws can still be challenged after they are proposed.

Exactly right, this ruling by the Supreme Court merely removed assumptions made more than 50 years ago, changes in voter laws....like districts country wide...can still be challenged. The Left's outrage here misplaced and overplayed, you give yourselves away so easily. You all seem so f'n hysterical all the time, is it Rachael or Chris you listen to, Nic? Or both?

oops.

[Trinnity]

People should have to present a valid ID to vote. If it were up to me, I'd say two IDs.

It's a serious responsibility and should be handled in a more secure manner. We need to cut down on election fraud. It was really bad last time. The election was so heavily manipulated they couldn't even hide it, and now with what we know about the IRS targeting conservative groups and donors, many of the skeptical are....................much less so.

[Adelaide]

Good to hear it. Yes, I think states should be in charge of their own voting laws.

With a country as large and diverse as the US, it makes sense for most issues.

[Chris]

With a country as large and diverse as the US, it makes sense for most issues.

Indeed, it allows different states to try different things, natural experimentation if you will, and learn from successes and failures, and evolve.

It's called federalism.

How does Canada operate?

[nic34]

People should have to present a valid ID to vote. If it were up to me, I'd say two IDs.

It's a serious responsibility and should be handled in a more secure manner. We need to cut down on election fraud. It was really bad last time. The election was so heavily manipulated they couldn't even hide it, and now with what we know about the IRS targeting conservative groups and donors, many of the skeptical are....................much less so.

Why, has there been a rash of people showing up and voting in your place? Ever been deprived of voting?

Didn't you show your ID when you registered like the rest of us?

[nic34]

Indeed, it allows different states to try different things, natural experimentation if you will, and learn from successes and failures, and evolve.

It's called federalism.

How does Canada operate?

Voting standards should be uniform for federal elections in all states.

[Agravan]

Why, has there been a rash of people showing up and voting in your place? Ever been deprived of voting?

Didn't you show your ID when you registered like the rest of us?Did Mickey Mouse show his ID when he was registered by liberal "Get Out The Vote" people?

[Chris]

Voting standards should be uniform for federal elections in all states.

Why? Explain why you disagree with the court's opinion in the case.

[Adelaide]

Indeed, it allows different states to try different things, natural experimentation if you will, and learn from successes and failures, and evolve.

It's called federalism.

How does Canada operate?

Our constitution clearly lays out what powers the different levels of government have:


1. Powers of the Parliament of Canada

The powers of Parliament, enumerated in ss. 91 and 92 (10) (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/3.html#anchorbo-ga:s_91-gb:s_91) of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/2.html), concern matters of national interest (see also notes (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/const/10.html#anchorsc:9)). They include the following:



Public Debt and Property
Regulation of Trade/Commerce
Unemployment insurance (http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=hist&sub=eip-pac&doc=eip-pac-eng.htm) (note 46 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/10.html#anchorsc:9))
Direct/Indirect Taxation
Postal Service
Census/Statistics
Defence
Navigation/Shipping
Quarantine
Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries
Ferries (interprovincial/ international)
Currency/Coinage
Banking /Incorporation of Banks/Paper Money
Weights and Measures
Bankruptcy
Patents
Copyrights
Indians/Indian reserves
Citizenship
Marriage/Divorce
Criminal law, including Criminal Procedure
Penitentiaries2 (http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal&sub=legis&doc=legis-eng.htm#ftn2)
Works connecting provinces; beyond boundaries of one province; within a province but to the advantage of Canada/or more than one province




2. Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures

The exclusive powers of Provincial legislatures, enumerated in ss. 92, 92(A) and 93 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/3.html#anchorbo-ga:s_91-gb:s_92) of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/2.html), concern matters of a local nature (also see notes (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/const/10.html#anchorsc:9)). They include the following:



Direct Taxation within Province
Management/Sale of Public Lands belonging to Province
Prisons
Hospitals
Municipalities
Formalization of Marriage
Property and Civil Rights (http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/property.htm)
Administration of Civil/Criminal Justice
Education
Incorporation of Companies
Natural Resources
Matters of a merely local or private nature





3. Concurrent/Shared Powers

Concurrent powers are specified in ss. 94A and s. 95 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/3.html#anchorbo-ga:s_91-gb:s_94A) of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/2.html) (also see notes (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/const/10.html#anchorsc:9)):



Old age pensions (see note 51 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/10.html#anchorsc:9))
Immigration
Agriculture

Certain areas of government action - some of which have become priorities over the years - are not specifically identified and assigned to one or both orders of governments in the Constitution Act, 1867. The courts have found that these areas come under various legislative powers, some federal, others provincial. Two such areas are the Environment (http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal&sub=legis&doc=env-eng.htm#env) and Health (http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal&sub=legis&doc=env-eng.htm#hea).

Click here (http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal&sub=legis&doc=env-eng.htm) to know more about federal/provincial constitutional powers in these areas.

From the government of Canada website.

Same-sex marriage is actually a really cool case to read about up here because of how it played out. Most of the provinces went above their pay grade, so to speak, and deemed a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, something only the federal government is supposed to have power over in Canada. Ontario was technically the first place in the world to recognize it as entirely legal in 2001. The provinces and territories essentially forced the issue. It worked it's way through the Supreme Court and then to the Federal government, where Bill C-38 was passed, (Civil Marriage Act of Canada) 4 years after Ontario had been the first to decide a ban was unconstitutional. Alberta threatened to use the Notwithstanding clause from our constitution, which allows them to essentially ignore parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for 5 years, (controversial - only used a handful of times in history).

The Notwithstanding clause is intended to protect the provinces from decisions the federal government makes that they don't/can't agree with - the example provided on the wikipedia article on the Notwithstanding clause would be if the Supreme Court deemed something like hate speech or child pornography as freedom of speech - the provinces could in theory enact the clause and ignore the ruling.

With Healthcare, probably the best example of how our government can work... we have the Canada Health Act which defines what the provinces must provide in terms of healthcare, (the "five pillars"). It is up to each province to decide how to do so, but failing to do so in the eyes of the federal government will result in lack of transfer payments (money to provinces to help provide healthcare) and possibly fines. Each province provides a different health insurance plan, some provinces have a private system in addition to the public while others ban private systems for specific portions of the healthcare industry, so forth. It's a complex system which is why when I personally speak of universal healthcare I am usually doing it based on my own provincial insurance since I am more familiar with that, then say AHCIP, (Alberta's plan).

[nic34]

Did Mickey Mouse show his ID when he was registered by liberal "Get Out The Vote" people?

Did he show up and vote in your place, did he?

[Chris]

Our constitution clearly lays out what powers the different levels of government have:


The Notwithstanding clause sounds like nullification, though that only a legal theory our Supremes have rejected.


Thanks for the explanation!!




From the government of Canada website.

Same-sex marriage is actually a really cool case to read about up here because of how it played out. Most of the provinces went above their pay grade, so to speak, and deemed a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, something only the federal government is supposed to have power over in Canada. Ontario was technically the first place in the world to recognize it as entirely legal in 2001. The provinces and territories essentially forced the issue. It worked it's way through the Supreme Court and then to the Federal government, where Bill C-38 was passed, (Civil Marriage Act of Canada) 4 years after Ontario had been the first to decide a ban was unconstitutional. Alberta threatened to use the Notwithstanding clause from our constitution, which allows them to essentially ignore parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for 5 years, (controversial - only used a handful of times in history).

The Notwithstanding clause is intended to protect the provinces from decisions the federal government makes that they don't/can't agree with - the example provided on the wikipedia article on the Notwithstanding clause would be if the Supreme Court deemed something like hate speech or child pornography as freedom of speech - the provinces could in theory enact the clause and ignore the ruling.

With Healthcare, probably the best example of how our government can work... we have the Canada Health Act which defines what the provinces must provide in terms of healthcare, (the "five pillars"). It is up to each province to decide how to do so, but failing to do so in the eyes of the federal government will result in lack of transfer payments (money to provinces to help provide healthcare) and possibly fines. Each province provides a different health insurance plan, some provinces have a private system in addition to the public while others ban private systems for specific portions of the healthcare industry, so forth. It's a complex system which is why when I personally speak of universal healthcare I am usually doing it based on my own provincial insurance since I am more familiar with that, then say AHCIP, (Alberta's plan).

[Chris]

Did Mickey Mouse show his ID when he was registered by liberal "Get Out The Vote" people?


Did he show up and vote in your place, did he?

"Vote early, vote often."
— Richard J. Daley, former mayor of Chicago

[Agravan]

Did he show up and vote in your place, did he?
You asked Trinnity if she had to show ID to register, like everyone else does. I simply asked you if MM had to show his ID to register. Are you incapable of answering a simple question?

[nic34]

Why? Explain why you disagree with the court's opinion in the case.
As an electrical engr, I just think too many shenanigans are possible with today's "technology".

On all sides.

Whether you vote Tuesday on a touch-screen voting machine or use a paper ballot, a host of computer systems are making it possible to collect and count your vote. These systems maintain registration databases, manage the information that goes on ballots and enable them to be printed, scan paper ballots, capture votes electronically, and collect and count scanned and electronic votes. And, for the most part, these different pieces of technology that together make up the U.S. voting process are made by a wide variety of vendors and handle data in diverse ways.

“In any one state, it could be a hodgepodge,” says John Wack, manager of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) common data format project and Vice Chair of IEEE Standards Project 1622 (more on that project in a moment).

“Because there is no common data format,” Wack says, “a state may have databases exporting in one format, being input by systems in another format, and exporting again in yet another format. A lot of proprietary software is being written in individual states to get these systems to talk to each other.”

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/software/an-ieee-standards-group-wants-all-election-computer-systems-to-speak-the-same-language

But cigar can probably elaborate on the data and programming side of this better than I....

[Chris]

As an electrical engr, I just think too many shenanigans are possible with today's "technology".

On all sides.

Whether you vote Tuesday on a touch-screen voting machine or use a paper ballot, a host of computer systems are making it possible to collect and count your vote. These systems maintain registration databases, manage the information that goes on ballots and enable them to be printed, scan paper ballots, capture votes electronically, and collect and count scanned and electronic votes. And, for the most part, these different pieces of technology that together make up the U.S. voting process are made by a wide variety of vendors and handle data in diverse ways.

“In any one state, it could be a hodgepodge,” says John Wack, manager of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) common data format project and Vice Chair of IEEE Standards Project 1622 (more on that project in a moment).

“Because there is no common data format,” Wack says, “a state may have databases exporting in one format, being input by systems in another format, and exporting again in yet another format. A lot of proprietary software is being written in individual states to get these systems to talk to each other.”

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/software/an-ieee-standards-group-wants-all-election-computer-systems-to-speak-the-same-language

But cigar can probably elaborate on the data and programming side of this better than I....

Good argument for oversight, and I don't disagree. Not sure that's better handle by federal bureaucrats though. It would be awfully expensive to send federal agents to monitor every voting district.

[KC]

As an electrical engr, I just think too many shenanigans are possible with today's "technology".

On all sides.

Whether you vote Tuesday on a touch-screen voting machine or use a paper ballot, a host of computer systems are making it possible to collect and count your vote. These systems maintain registration databases, manage the information that goes on ballots and enable them to be printed, scan paper ballots, capture votes electronically, and collect and count scanned and electronic votes. And, for the most part, these different pieces of technology that together make up the U.S. voting process are made by a wide variety of vendors and handle data in diverse ways.

“In any one state, it could be a hodgepodge,” says John Wack, manager of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) common data format project and Vice Chair of IEEE Standards Project 1622 (more on that project in a moment).

“Because there is no common data format,” Wack says, “a state may have databases exporting in one format, being input by systems in another format, and exporting again in yet another format. A lot of proprietary software is being written in individual states to get these systems to talk to each other.”

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/software/an-ieee-standards-group-wants-all-election-computer-systems-to-speak-the-same-language

But cigar can probably elaborate on the data and programming side of this better than I....

That's why voting needs to be verifiable, but still secret, and needs to have both an electronic and a paper record. David Bismark explains one idea his team of researchers developed for this very purpose here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html

[IMPress Polly]

I'll just do on this thread what I did with the marriage equality thread and re-post my Facebook entry on the topic at hand:

"So much for the claims of rightists to oppose judicial review (i.e. judicial activism)! In the most evil, racist, and offensive decision the court has made in my lifetime -- indeed I would say since Plessy V. Ferguson in 1896 -- a 5 to 4 majority of its judges opted to scrap Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act basically means minority voting rights. It is legislation that the civil rights movement of the 1960s fought vigorously for. Many even died struggling for it. According to the Supreme Court, you see, "the country has changed" since 1965, so there is no longer any need of such petty things like federal protection of the rights of minorities to vote. Lest you believe that is actually any truth to that notion, no fewer than five U.S. states -- all previously barred by the Voting Rights Act from changing their voting laws without advance federal clearance because of their long and proven histories of passing racially discriminatory voting laws -- announced their intentions to pass voter ID laws that were previously barred by the Voting Rights Act because they deliberately target minority groups, and Latinos in particular ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE COURT ISSUED ITS VERDICT!! The ink hadn't yet dried on the court's verdict before the states in question immediately began planning to pass new Jim Crow type voting laws! These five justices who issued the verdict will go down in history alongside their comrades who issued the infamous 1857 pro-slavery Dred Scott verdict and the 1896 federal authorization of institutionalized racial segregation of public places, and, like their comrades, they will not be remembered fondly."

To offer one additional thought, I feel that yesterday's decision marks the beginning of a new and much darker era in this country. I feel that we are now something less than an authentic democracy. I also feel that this decision endangers the prospects for immigration reform, as now the Republicans know they don't need to win over Latino voters to remain politically relevant anymore; now they can just disenfranchise them.

[Chris]

I'll just do on this thread what I did with the marriage equality thread and re-post my Facebook entry on the topic at hand:

"So much for the claims of rightists to oppose judicial review (i.e. judicial activism)! In the most evil, racist, and offensive decision the court has made in my lifetime -- indeed I would say since Plessy V. Ferguson in 1896 -- a 5 to 4 majority of its judges opted to scrap Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act basically means minority voting rights. It is legislation that the civil rights movement of the 1960s fought vigorously for. Many even died struggling for it. According to the Supreme Court, you see, "the country has changed" since 1965, so there is no longer any need of such petty things like federal protection of the rights of minorities to vote. Lest you believe that is actually any truth to that notion, no fewer than five U.S. states -- all previously barred by the Voting Rights Act from changing their voting laws without advance federal clearance because of their long and proven histories of passing racially discriminatory voting laws -- announced their intentions to pass voter ID laws that were previously barred by the Voting Rights Act because they deliberately target minority groups, and Latinos in particular ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE COURT ISSUED ITS VERDICT!! The ink hadn't yet dried on the court's verdict before the states in question immediately began planning to pass new Jim Crow type voting laws! These five justices who issued the verdict will go down in history alongside their comrades who issued the infamous 1857 pro-slavery Dred Scott verdict and the 1896 federal authorization of institutionalized racial segregation of public places, and, like their comrades, they will not be remembered fondly."

To offer one additional thought, I feel that yesterday's decision marks the beginning of a new and much darker era in this country. I feel that we are now something less than an authentic democracy. I also feel that this decision endangers the prospects for immigration reform, as now the Republicans know they don't need to win over Latino voters to remain politically relevant anymore; now they can just disenfranchise them.


In the most evil, racist, and offensive decision the court has made in my lifetime

What's the basis of that opinion?

[IMPress Polly]

It's already being used to take away the voting rights of minorities right now, as I write this. You don't see how dramatically reducing the degree of democracy in society is socially harmful?

[Chris]

It's already being used to take away the voting rights of minorities right now, as I write this. You don't see how dramatically reducing the degree of democracy in society is socially harmful?

Sorry, but I don't see your assumption happening. The court decided that's the past.

[nic34]

Yeah, polly, didn't you know there is NO racism anymore?

[Cigar]

Of course obama and holder are butt hurt over this. Makes it a little harder to steal elections.

Especially for that third (3) term ... :laugh:

[Ravi]

Yeah, polly, didn't you know there is NO racism anymore?
How can there be??? We have a black President. ;)

[Agravan]

It's already being used to take away the voting rights of minorities right now, as I write this. You don't see how dramatically reducing the degree of democracy in society is socially harmful?

Please show any law that would "take away the voting rights of minorities".
I'm a minority. I have NEVER had any problem voting.

[Chris]

Yeah, polly, didn't you know there is NO racism anymore?

Not what i said, nic, nice distortion though.

[Agravan]

How can there be??? We have a black President. ;)
No we don't.

[Peter1469]

I see the case (just as with DOMA) as a States' rights ruling. If states start to oppress black voters nothing prevents the Federal government from enacting a new law to address it. What the Court said was that the Federal government can correct state injustice, but it can't use that as a pretext to usurp state power forever.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
I see the case (just as with DOMA) as a States' rights ruling. If states start to oppress black voters nothing prevents the Federal government from enacting a new law to address it. What the Court said was that the Federal government can correct state injustice, but it can't use that as a pretext to usurp state power forever.

Actually the individual states under special scrutiny already had a way of getting out of it: by refraining from passing racist voting laws for a period of ten years and then applying for termination of their special scrutiny. There are places in this country that have successfully done so. Now though it's open season on voting rules and we're dependent upon a broken, split, and heavily partisan Congress that can't even agree on what to name a bridge to agree upon replacement criteria. I'm not seeing that happening.

[Peter1469]

Actually the individual states under special scrutiny already had a way of getting out of it: by refraining from passing racist voting laws for a period of ten years and then applying for termination of their special scrutiny. There are places in this country that have successfully done so. Now though it's open season on voting rules and we're dependent upon a broken, split, and heavily partisan Congress that can't even agree on what to name a bridge to agree upon replacement criteria. I'm not seeing that happening.


Gerrymandering will certainly go nuts in these states.

[jillian]

Gerrymandering will certainly go nuts in these states.

so doesn't that show the basis for overturning the teeth of the voting rights' act is a false one?

also, within the last weeks, texas was told they couldn't change polling rolls so that white precints had 4,500 voters and minority precints had 45,000... so that it would be harder for minorities to vote. the u.s. attorney's office kibboshed it as having a racist effect... which it did. that wasn't 40 years ago.

doesn't that one fact alone mitigate against evisceration of the law?

[zelmo1234]

so doesn't that show the basis for overturning the teeth of the voting rights' act is a false one?

also, within the last weeks, texas was told they couldn't change polling rolls so that white precints had 4,500 voters and minority precints had 45,000... so that it would be harder for minorities to vote. the u.s. attorney's office kibboshed it as having a racist effect... which it did. that wasn't 40 years ago.

doesn't that one fact alone mitigate against evisceration of the law?

Well here are the FACTS on what TX is implementing that Attn General Holder Struck Down!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/texas-advances-voter-id-law-after-supreme-court-ruling.php

Now we know that Democrats are totally against voter ID laws because this makes it harder for illegals to vote and for people to use the tried a true tactic of vote early and vote often!

Here is the redistricting that she is talking about!

http://minx.cc/?post=332323

[Chris]

I see the case (just as with DOMA) as a States' rights ruling. If states start to oppress black voters nothing prevents the Federal government from enacting a new law to address it. What the Court said was that the Federal government can correct state injustice, but it can't use that as a pretext to usurp state power forever.

It is interesting to note that this VRA case, the DOMA case, the prop 8 case, in all three cases it was in deference to states' right federalism.

Now we'd expect conservative justices to argue that way as they did in the VRA case, but unexpected was liberals arguing for federalism, conservatives against, in the DOMA and prop 8 cases. Probably should have seen this coming when Ginsberg recently disagreed with the Roe v Wade case on the same grounds: "Some things would have happened in the interim, at the state legislatures. There were a range of positions at the time of Roe…. It was fluid... too far, too fast."

[jillian]

It is interesting to note that this VRA case, the DOMA case, the prop 8 case, in all three cases it was in deference to states' right federalism.

Now we'd expect conservative justices to argue that way as they did in the VRA case, but unexpected was liberals arguing for federalism, conservatives against, in the DOMA and prop 8 cases. Probably should have seen this coming when Ginsberg recently disagreed with the Roe v Wade case on the same grounds: "Some things would have happened in the interim, at the state legislatures. There were a range of positions at the time of Roe…. It was fluid... too far, too fast."

No. It wasn't.

DOMA was decided based on equal protection.
Prop 8 was decided based on lack of standing of the petitioners.
I haven't fully read the VRA case, but it said that there was no evidence of the continued need for the enforcement. it had little to do with states rights and everything to do with a belief that certain states were being unfairly treated.

that's not the same thing.

[Chris]

No. It wasn't.

DOMA was decided based on equal protection.
Prop 8 was decided based on lack of standing of the petitioners.
I haven't fully read the VRA case, but it said that there was no evidence of the continued need for the enforcement. it had little to do with states rights and everything to do with a belief that certain states were being unfairly treated.

that's not the same thing.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

DOMA recognized states' rights federalism to define marriage and rejected federal government's. Read Kennedy's opinion.

Prop 8 was returned to CA to settle, deference again to state's rights federalism.

VRA found federal interference unconstitutional and returned the power to the states.

[Chris]

Re my post #87, here's Marvin Olasky, an old time social conservative, on Another ‘Roe’ to Hoe: A States-Rights DOMA Ruling Should Have Implications Beyond Same-Sex Marriage (http://townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/2013/04/30/another-roe-to-hoe-a-statesrights-doma-ruling-should-have-implications-beyond-samesex-marriage-n1581780/page/full).

Note this was back in April.


We are now in the intermission of this year’s biggest judicial drama. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on same-sex marriage (SSM) in late March—Act One—and will rule by the end of June....

First, instant reviews of Act One said the Supremes are on a states-rights kick: They don’t want Washington to impose a national uniformity in defining marriage by upholding the Defense of Marriage Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, spoke of “a real risk” of running into “conflict with what has always been the essence of state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”

So be it. Too bad the high court didn’t have its nine heads screwed on straight four decades ago, when it nationalized abortion law to the extreme. Too bad Kennedy himself earned the nickname “flipper” two decades ago when he was the crucial fifth vote in the Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey upholding of Roe v. Wade. But the logic of a states-rights position on gay marriage also suggests an overturn of Roe v. Wade—if the justices have the courage to accept bad reviews from “The New York Times” and its acolytes.

That’s a big if....

Today’s justices have a chance to do not only what’s right but what’s logical: If the Supreme Court affirms states rights on marriage, why not on abortion?...

[Ransom]

No. It wasn't.

DOMA was decided based on equal protection.
Prop 8 was decided based on lack of standing of the petitioners.
I haven't fully read the VRA case, but it said that there was no evidence of the continued need for the enforcement. it had little to do with states rights and everything to do with a belief that certain states were being unfairly treated.

that's not the same thing.

States have equal protection under the law as well, no?

[Chris]

States have equal protection under the law as well, no?

True, each state probably does, but I think what jillian is referring to is Kennedy in his DOMA opinion, deferring to the states, reminds them they are subject to 5th amendment protections as incorporated by the 14th amendment. And that, imo, is true.

[Peter1469]

It is interesting to note that this VRA case, the DOMA case, the prop 8 case, in all three cases it was in deference to states' right federalism.

Now we'd expect conservative justices to argue that way as they did in the VRA case, but unexpected was liberals arguing for federalism, conservatives against, in the DOMA and prop 8 cases. Probably should have seen this coming when Ginsberg recently disagreed with the Roe v Wade case on the same grounds: "Some things would have happened in the interim, at the state legislatures. There were a range of positions at the time of Roe…. It was fluid... too far, too fast."

It does seem to be a trend over the last few terms.

[Peter1469]

No. It wasn't.

DOMA was decided based on equal protection.
Prop 8 was decided based on lack of standing of the petitioners.
I haven't fully read the VRA case, but it said that there was no evidence of the continued need for the enforcement. it had little to do with states rights and everything to do with a belief that certain states were being unfairly treated.

that's not the same thing.

If DOMA was based on equal protection then gays in states that have not legalized gay marriage now would....

[Chris]

Civil unions would satisfy equal protections.

[ptif219]

yes i know what the allegation was.

now the real voter fraud

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/06/the-real-gop-voter-fraud-employees-admit-forging-voter-registration-forms/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/20/3462110/state-investigators-never-interviewed.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/11/26/florida-republicans-admit-voter-fraud-subterfuge-gop-victory.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/colin-small-charges_n_3007443.html

The real voter fraud is democrats and the IRS scandal

[Cigar]

Supreme Logic?
http://www.bartcop.com/abortion-light.jpg

[Ransom]

What's the definition of eviscerated in your opinion?

Watch this....

[nic34]

What's the definition of eviscerated in your opinion?

Watch this....

Maybe this will help:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/steelworkers-supreme-court-eviscerated-voting-rights-act-213034191.html

[Common]

Seems that decision is unpopular with most of america,


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-poll_n_3540140.html

[Ransom]

You're arguing that systemic disenfranchisement of African Americans and other minorities still exists in many states requiring federal approval for state and local governments to change election laws or procedures. That allowing these states to manage their own election laws and procedures is the "evisceration" of voting rights?

You're hysterical.