Awful day for freedom.

[Dechipher]

Voting Rights Act.

Texas Republicans.

The only branch of our government that I'm not extremely disappointed in right now is the Executive Branch.

[Mercy]

Voting Rights Act.
How is it constitutional that some states are subjected to stricter federal regulations than others?




The only branch of our government that I'm not extremely disappointed in right now is the Executive Branch. My bad, I thought you were in the US.

[Glenn the Great]

How is it constitutional that some states are subjected to stricter federal regulations than others?

For the same reasons that children are subjected to stricter federal regulations than are adults.

[Tim]

The same reason they get paid six figures to halt progress. "Moving forward" my ass.

[CJC]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was a birthday thread for Freedom.

----

How is it constitutional that some states are subjected to stricter federal regulations than others?I agree with Mercy. The Federal Government's policies should apply to every state equally. Either all states should be subjected to the stricter regulations, or none of them should be. Giving certain states preferential treatment (in this case, the states that were not subject to the stricter policy in the first place) not only muddies the law, but confuses the purpose of a central government in general--that purpose being centralized legislation.

I hope they DO put it back in place, but as an actual Federal regulation that applies to all fifty states, and any others that would follow in the future. The matter isn't about voting; it's about the Federal government giving itself leave to give out preferential treatment. Preferential treatment applied to states damages the cohesion of our union, and such practices should never be adopted.

[Glenn the Great]

Either all states should be subjected to the stricter regulations, or none of them should be. Giving certain states preferential treatment (in this case, the states that were not subject to the stricter policy in the first place) not only muddies the law, but confuses the purpose of a central government in general--that purpose being centralized legislation.

The restrictions on certain states (mostly former Slave-owning/Jim Crow states) are there to prevent the racist legislators in charge of those states from disenfranchising the black vote through laws that, while not racist on the surface, are carefully engineered for the same end result.

As much as people want to believe that racism is dead in our day and age, it is not, and those regulations are still needed.

[CJC]

The restrictions on certain states (mostly former Slave-owning/Jim Crow states) are there to prevent the racist legislators in charge of those states from disenfranchising the black vote through laws that, while not racist on the surface, are carefully engineered for the same end result.

As much as people want to believe that racism is dead in our day and age, it is not, and those regulations are still needed.
Given an indefinite length of time, though, ANY state could have a significant change in legislators. Since these regulations were put in place to prevent discriminating policies (like a Jim Crow Law), what would have been the harm in having it apply to ALL of the states from the get go? Northern states are forever infallible, because they were good at the time? That sounds like a load of crap. It's just very poorly executed.


My point is not about preventing the Federal Government from passing laws and regulations on State Governments. My point is that those laws... ANY Federal law... should apply to every state by default. It's a FEDERAL law, after all. It reflects a decision made by our entire union (both evenly by Senate and through population by the House), so it should apply to our entire union.
What harm would have been done if those stricter regulations had applied to EVERY state from the get go? Extra federal expenses? Pheh, it generates jobs too, which have always been more important.
So I'm not saying that the regulation was not necessary (nor that it is no longer needed). I'm saying its initial execution was incorrect, which damages its position as a viable federal law.


It's funny. Here I am, a libertarian against big government, and I'm arguing on the side of stricter government regulations for the sake of a simpler federal model.

:gavel: Law in general is needlessly complicated.

[Saffith]

I don't disagree with the court's ruling, per se; it's been a long time, and the preclearance formula is out-of-date. The problem's only gotten worse, and the requirement should absolutely apply to every state. But by striking down the old formula, they've left us with none at all, which is even worse. And they left it up to Congress to come up with a new one. There's no chance in Hell they'll get it right.

[Glenn the Great]

Since these regulations were put in place to prevent discriminating policies (like a Jim Crow Law), what would have been the harm in having it apply to ALL of the states from the get go?

I was going to say extra federal expenses but you said "pheh" to that, so I guess there's no convincing you.

[rock_nog]

Well, DOMA was repealed, so there is that on the plus side of things. I guess that all depends on your stance on the issue, though, but personally, I thought that was a great thing. Also, the Texas Republicans may be total jackasses, but they were luckily stopped (doesn't mean they won't try that crap again). But, once again, I guess it all depends on your stance on that matter. Plus, Lord knows they're gonna just keep trying 'till they succeed. At any rate, these are two cases of power being denied from the government, so regardless of your individual stances on the issues, it does mean more freedom for the people, for better or for worse.

If it wasn't clear, I support both decisions wholeheartedly, I just don't want to start a potential debate on the matter. Shoot, I really have gotten older. LOL, just remembering there was a time when I would have jumped at the opportunity to get into a yelling match with Beldaran or something.

[Saffith]

At any rate, these are two cases of power being denied from the government, so regardless of your individual stances on the issues, it does mean more freedom for the people, for better or for worse.
Regarding the Voting Rights Act, I'd have to say that's not true. It means more freedom for state legislatures, but that when they keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, that translates to less freedom for the people. In many cases, the requirement of federal approval was the only thing stopping them.

[rock_nog]

Regarding the Voting Rights Act, I'd have to say that's not true. It means more freedom for state legislatures, but that when they keep trying to make it harder for people to vote, that translates to less freedom for the people. In many cases, the requirement of federal approval was the only thing stopping them.
Well, I wasn't referring to the Voting Rights Act, yes you're right in that case. I was simply making the point that there is at least some good news.

[Mercy]

Law in general is needlessly complicated.
So much this. Laws should have built-in expiration dates. If they are worth being re-enacted, they will stay on the books. At least then we might not have people getting away with rape (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/california-1872-rape-law) because the victim was not married.


For the same reasons that children are subjected to stricter federal regulations than are adults.
Wrong. You can try again but we both know that pithy does not equate with constitutional. It was a fine response, though so you get points for wit.

I was not really interested in discussing if the VRA was good or bad and agree with CJC that it should be either all or no one in regards to federal laws. I also tend to think there should be fewer federal laws but that does not really pertain to any part of this discussion. If the law is right and just, then it is right and just when applied to everyone, equally. Otherwise, you just have another farce like the Emancipation Proclamation saying bigotry is only wrong when certain people do it.

Racism is not dead but this Band*Aid legislation has lost its usefulness and is just dangling there, waiting to fall into the cook pot and ruin a lot of appetites. The disparities in Minority* voting are either gone or tilted in the opposite direction from where they were when the formulas were developed to balance the numbers out. In other words, in districts/regions the VRA is applied to where Minority voter registration and turn-out was much lower than white voter registration and turn-out, the numbers are now either even or there is greater Minority registration and turn-out. The VRA can actually be used in those areas to now show preference to white voters where they are now the voting minority.

The VRA also facilitates affirmative action of sorts in regards to legislative and bureaucratic positions which is evil or not in its own right but let's go on as if it's the greatest thing ever. So now, as a hypothetical example, there are twelve district seats to be filled and it is guaranteed that three of them will be Minority held. Those three seats are assumed to be filled by winning candidates of the three Minority-ist districts and whites "respectfully" decline to run in those districts. The Minority candidates know a. those three districts are the most likely to vote for a fellow Minority just because and b. they will not have to compete against white candidates and their money (white candidates generally have larger war chests than Minority candidates). Big fish, little pond-thinking. This often leads to most or all of the Minority candidates running in the few Minority districts while the remaining majority of seats are filled by whites. This happens in states/counties/cities where the VRA is not applicable, too, but the VRA fosters this sort of bureaucratic bamboozle rather than dissuades it.

Ultimately, I do not believe racism can die in this country so long as we continue to legislate based on its existence. Other changes will also need to occur but change always comes eventually.



*Big M Minority="official" minorities ie, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans; little m minorities=a subset less than 50% of the given group