Posted on 03/07/2006 11:52:55 AM PST by Tarkin
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10) outlawed the requirement that would-be voters in the United States take literacy tests to qualify to register to vote, and it provided for federal registration of voters -- instead of state or local voter registration which had often been denied to minority and poor voters -- in areas that had less than 50% of eligible voters registered. The act also provided for DOJ oversight to registration, and the Department's approval for any change in voting law in districts whose populations were at least 5% African-American. It was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965. The Act was upheld by the Supreme Court less than one year later
SOUTH CAROLINA v. KATZENBACH, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
(...) After enduring nearly a century of widespread resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress has marshalled an array of potent weapons against the evil, with authority in the Attorney General to employ them effectively. Many of the areas directly affected by this development have indicated their willingness to abide by any restraints legitimately imposed upon them.[Footnote 51] We here hold that the portions of the Voting Rights Act properly before us are a valid means for carrying out the commands of the Fifteenth Amendment. Hopefully, millions of non-white Americans will now be able to participate for the first time on an equal basis in the government under which they live. We may finally look forward to the day when truly "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, concurring and dissenting.
(...)
Section 5, by providing that some of the States cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the Constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless. One of the most basic premises upon which our structure of government was founded was that the Federal Government was to have certain specific and limited powers and no others, and all other power was to be reserved either "to the States respectively, or to the people." Certainly if all the provisions of our Constitution which limit the power of the Federal Government and reserve other power to the States are to mean anything, they mean at least that the States have power to pass laws and amend their constitutions without first sending their officials hundreds of miles away to beg federal authorities to approve them. Moreover, it seems to me that 5 which gives federal officials power to veto state laws they do not like is in direct conflict with the clear command of our Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." I cannot help but believe that the inevitable effect of any such law which forces any one of the States to entreat federal authorities in far-away places for approval of local laws before they can become effective is to create the impression that the State or States treated in this way are little more than conquered provinces. And if one law concerning voting can make the States plead for this approval by a distant federal court or the United States Attorney General, other laws on different subjects can force the States to seek the advance approval not only of the Attorney General but of the President himself or any other chosen members of his staff. It is inconceivable to me that such a radical degradation of state power was intended in any of the provisions of our Constitution or its Amendments.
In a tongue in cheek way, I wonder if Palm Beach County wishes they had a literacy test to assess whether a person was capable of voting or not?
Given the problems with the butterfly ballot, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people down there don't know how to read simple instructions.
Literacy test would be good, certainly citizenship proof would be helpful, and a statement of taxes (property or income) paid should be required.
Yeah, but what about the 24th Amendment?
It's the ones who don't pay taxes who are always willing to vote for new taxes.
I figure if you're not paying taxes then you shouldn't have a say in how they are collected or how they're spent.
At the absolute minimum, a state-issued ID should be mandatory for anyone wishing to vote.
No ID? You don't get to vote! End of discussion!
Motion to Amend XXIV
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
As is usual with these major decisions, the public becomes ignorant of the fact that the argument in dissent is truly often more about the means obtained by the solution than the goals of the solution; more about the reach of the law than the objective of the law; more about fundamental issues of our government structure than any philosophical agreement with the error the law intends to correct.
Why?, because too many are soley obsessed with the result and too willing to ignore the means.
Article XXIV Proposed 1962; Ratified 1964 Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay income or property taxes.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
.....People who don't own property or have a job shouldn't be able to vote?.....
What about disabled and disgrunteled postal workers??
The issue here is that you don't issue blanket protections for those who do not contribute to the society as a whole. The right to vote should be contingent on responsible participation and contribution.
The 24th amenment might as well read "and you will vote for democrats under penalty of....."
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 526
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK joins, dissenting.
Since 1879, Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 680(1966)
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting.
The final demise of state poll taxes, already totally proscribed by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment with respect to federal elections and abolished by the States themselves in all but four States with respect to state elections, 1 is perhaps in itself not of great moment. But the fact that the coup de grace has been administered by this Court instead of being left to the affected States or to the federal political process should be a matter of continuing concern to all interested in maintaining the proper role of this tribunal under our scheme of government
"The issue here is that you don't issue blanket protections for those who do not contribute to the society as a whole. The right to vote should be contingent on responsible participation and contribution."
That was not the issue decided by the case of which this thread is the subject, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, nor was that issue at the heart of the dissent. The issue was the reach of federal power, and as the dissent noted, once accepted for the case in question it would be difficult to deny that reach anywhere the federal congress wanted.
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.