Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar
It is really a case of states rights versus the federal government. The 1965 Voting Rights Act took sovereignty away from certain states and made them subject to rules not applicable to the other states. On the issue of fairness and equal treatment alone, this was not constitutional.

That is what I have always believed. Also it seems to me that the 14th amendment would also make unconstitutional the Voting Rights Act punishing southern states, and by extension their citizens, but not other states, for 40 years. I believe Texas, for example, has the right to ensure that voters are eligible without being vetoed by Holder; otherwise legal votes are devalued.

And to keep it in place until 2031 (the act was renewed for 25 years in 2006) was a travesty. Black voter turnout in the South is higher than white turnout.

The GOP was too cowardly to oppose this preposterous and unjust renewal.

76 posted on 06/25/2013 5:35:24 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; kabar; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; NFHale; dragnet2; Impy

“The GOP was too cowardly to oppose this preposterous and unjust renewal. “

GOP rewrote the definition of cowardice. It’s all they do.


85 posted on 06/26/2013 9:18:03 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (The RINO/amnesty argument goes like this: 1) If we pander to Hispanics, we will save the GOP, at le)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson