Posted on 06/29/2013 6:30:34 PM PDT by Wellington VII
This week’s Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder overturned Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which mandated federal oversight of changes in voting procedure in jurisdictions that have a history of using a “test or device” to impede enfranchisement. Here is one example of such a test, used in Louisiana in 1964.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Maybe so, but I think they should give it to all potential voters. If you cannot get at least 70%, your a dumb as a box of rocks and should not be voting. Maybe this would stop the mental patients that the Democrats bus to voting booths from voting.
Help me land a better job so I can get married and have kiddos and buy a house in this **** economy.
There isn’t any passage in the Constitution about who should vote. Period.
It’s up to the states.
I’m simply stating that there SHOULD be a test of some kind. Didn’t say anything about “100%”, so don’t put that on me. People should at least be able to identify some of the people running for office on their own, without prompters. Maybe indicate they actually have a clue about what is going on in the world, or at least their town.
That’s probably the easiest way to do it freehand. Try it yourself!
Another way is to take a circle template and hold down one end, while running the pencil along the outside. If you’ve done it right you’ll get a very pretty flower shape with 5 circular petals.
You’d need a ruler and a compass to do it the correct way unless you had a very steady freehand.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
That States decide, because they decide the method of choosing voters (electors) for the State Legislature. If they want a literacy test, that's what the Constitution grants.
Glad I could be of help.
Wherever you got that information, there is around a 98% chance of it being made up and passed off as true by some media or maybe the Southern Poverty Law Center.
If you could prove you completed 5th grade you didn’t have to take the test.
What's the answer to question 30?
Not that I have yet been able to render a drawing according to your instructions. at least your sentences do have necessary and proper verbs, unlike the mysterious syntax of question #30.
“So far, so good. Now sing “I Want To Hold Your Hand”........the German version backwards.”
>> It wasn’t boiler plate.
Well, yeah, it was. Sorry, I know you’re righteous, but posting the same copied text with no individual comment — indeed, essentially no comment at all — is posting boilerplate. How about posting once to all four miscreants then?
>> I deliberately posted it as a reply to each person who was (ignorantly) dismissing the test as “trivial” and “easy”.
It’s not at all ignorant to dismiss this test as trivial and easy, because, truth be told, it IS pretty trivial and pretty easy, if you can think. I can’t count the number of IQ, GRE, military acceptance, etc. tests I have taken that have QUITE SIMILAR questions.
The problems instead lie in the fact that grading it can be subjective, and more importantly, the test was given distinctively to blacks, not across the board to all voters. It was also given an arbitrary and, it appears, unreasonable “passing” threshold.
In my view, your failure to understand and acknowledge these truths, coupled with your broadcast of your own cherry picked example, indicate that you have predjudicial issue of your own.
What is the answer to #28?
It's a straight line, is the shortest distance between two points.
Neither answer is correct.
It is an axiom of Euclid's geometry that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, or, more generally, part of the definition of Euclidean Space is that the distance between two points is a straight line.
Not hairsplitting. For example, in our universe, a straight line is NOT the shortest distance between two points.
She is their show model, their end result, their pride & joy.
But the entire VRA was not overturned; just the parts that required certain states to preauthorize changes to their voting laws with the Feds.
The real reason that liberals are upset is that they will not be able to declare voter ID a nullity in Texas and a few other important states. In that event, the current case law says voter ID laws are valid. In effect, the Feds were trying to treat citizens in Southern states like 2nd class Americans not covered by the case law -- EXACTLY the injustice the VRA was designed to remove.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.