BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court strikes down section of Voting Rights Act : Videos

What If The Supreme Court Strikes Down Sec. 5 of ... What If The Supreme Court Strikes Down Sec. 5 of ... What If The Supreme Court Strikes Down Sec. .... Supreme Court To Look At Section 5 Of ... Duration: 445 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:32:32 -0800	WASHINGTON WATCH: Voting Rights Act And ... WASHINGTON WATCH: Voting Rights Act And ... The second line of defense is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. First ... 5 of the Voting ... Duration: 473 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:46:51 -0800	Supreme Court overturns Voting Rights Act ... Supreme Court overturns Voting Rights Act ... The Supreme Court ruled on Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder Monday, striking down ... Duration: 276 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:24:08 -0700	Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting ... Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting ... Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act. Duration: 31 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:52:59 -0700
Voting Rights Act Challenged In Court - YouTube Voting Rights Act Challenged In Court - YouTube ... Avaneen discuss the challenge to section 5 of the voting rights with ... Act And Voting ... Duration: 2018 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:00:37 -0700	Voting Rights Are Still Under Attack; Supreme Court ... Voting Rights Are Still Under Attack; Supreme Court ... Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act ... Duration: 464 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:15:13 -0800	Voting Rights Act Protest at the Supreme Court ... Voting Rights Act Protest at the Supreme Court ... Protesters rallied in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday calling for the high court to uphold ... Duration: 284 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:54:12 -0800	U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Racist Arizona ... U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Racist Arizona ... WASHINGTON WATCH: Voting Rights Act And Voting Right May Be Struck Down By The ... Duration: 401 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:39:59 -0700
Is Discrimination Provision of Voting Rights Act ... Is Discrimination Provision of Voting Rights Act ... 6 dias atrás -- Should the Supreme Court Strike Down the 'Preclearance' Provision of ... Duration: 529 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:37:40 -0800	Voting Rights Act Takes Hit by Supreme Court - 6 ... Voting Rights Act Takes Hit by Supreme Court - 6 ... The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act, weakening ... Duration: 346 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:20:31 -0700	Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Rally - YouTube Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Rally - YouTube Excerpts from the Voting Rights Act Rally at the Supreme Court to ... Rights Act And Voting ... Duration: 408 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:33:26 -0800	Supreme Court To Hear Voting Rights Act ... Supreme Court To Hear Voting Rights Act ... Supreme Court To Hear Voting Rights Act Challenge After Vigorous GOP Voter ... Supreme ... Duration: 536 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:39:22 -0800
Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Voting Rights ... Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Voting Rights ... The Supreme Court heard arguments over a provision in the landmark ... What If The Supreme ... Duration: 448 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:54:49 -0800	The Supreme Court on the 1965 Voting Rights Act ... The Supreme Court on the 1965 Voting Rights Act ... The Supreme Court on the 1965 Voting Rights Act ... Voting Rights Are Still Under Attack ... Duration: 498 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:03:51 -0700	US supreme court to hear voting rights case to ... US supreme court to hear voting rights case to ... The US Supreme Court is to hear a challenge to a key section of the ... WATCH: Voting ... Duration: 161 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:26:42 -0800	The "Citizens United" for Voting Rights? Civil ... The "Citizens United" for Voting Rights? Civil ... And Section 5 is the heart and soul of the Voting Rights Act. So, if the Supreme Court was to ... Duration: 93 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:50:01 -0800
Williams: Votes are there to strike down DOMA - YouTube Williams: Votes are there to strike down DOMA - YouTube Congressional Democrats Urge Supreme Court To Strike Down Part Of ... law - Video on ... Duration: 226 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:16:49 -0700	Court Strikes Down Key Provision In Voting Rights ... Court Strikes Down Key Provision In Voting Rights ... Court Strikes Down Key Provision In Voting Rights Act! - Judge Andrew ... In Mixed Ruling ... Duration: 412 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:41:39 -0700	Supreme Court Hears Challenge To The Voting ... Supreme Court Hears Challenge To The Voting ... Supreme Court Hears Challenge To The Voting Rights Act; Statue Of Rosa Parks Unveiled ... Duration: 248 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:20:50 -0800	Voting Rights Act Challenged in Court: Possible ... Voting Rights Act Challenged in Court: Possible ... Voting Rights Act Challenged in Court: Possible Dire ... TYT Army members Jeff Waldorf and ... Duration: 2018 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:23:18 -0800
Supreme Court Stikes Down Parts of Voting ... Supreme Court Stikes Down Parts of Voting ... Supreme Court Stikes Down Parts of Voting Rights Act ... Federal Court Strikes Down Key ... Duration: 315 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:40:20 -0700	The People March for Voting Rights in Selma, AL ... The People March for Voting Rights in Selma, AL ... This year is especially meaningful because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is being challenged ... Duration: 75 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:53:06 -0800	Voting Rights Law Under Fire in Supreme Court ... Voting Rights Law Under Fire in Supreme Court ... Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is being challenged in the Supreme Court case ... Duration: 151 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:52:18 -0800	Scalia: 'Racial Entitlement' in Voting Rights Act ... Scalia: 'Racial Entitlement' in Voting Rights Act ... "Conservative justices on the Supreme Court expressed skepticism ... Antonin Scalia ... Duration: 509 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:44:36 -0800

Supreme Court strikes down section of Voting Rights Act : Photo Gallery

Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down the Voting Rights Act's ... Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down the Voting Rights Act's ... Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down the Voting Rights Act's	Gavel Grab » Will Supreme Court Strike Down Key Part of Voting ... Gavel Grab » Will Supreme Court Strike Down Key Part of Voting ... Gavel Grab » Will Supreme Court Strike Down Key Part of Voting	Supreme Court looks set to strike down heart of Voting Rights Act ... Supreme Court looks set to strike down heart of Voting Rights Act ... Supreme Court looks set to strike down heart of Voting Rights Act	o-VOTING-RIGHTS-ACT-SUPREME- ... o-VOTING-RIGHTS-ACT-SUPREME- ... o-VOTING-RIGHTS-ACT-SUPREME- ...
Voting rights on the chopping block - Opinion - Al Jazeera English Voting rights on the chopping block - Opinion - Al Jazeera English Voting rights on the chopping block - Opinion - Al Jazeera English	Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | Fox News Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | Fox News Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | Fox News	Obama: Keep key Voting Rights Act provision - Salon. Obama: Keep key Voting Rights Act provision - Salon. Obama: Keep key Voting Rights Act provision - Salon.	The Supreme Court Shouldn't Strike Down the Voting Rights Act - US ... The Supreme Court Shouldn't Strike Down the Voting Rights Act - US ... The Supreme Court Shouldn't Strike Down the Voting Rights Act - US
Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | 870AM ... Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | 870AM ... Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | 870AM	Voting rights in the balance as Supreme Court about to issue decision Voting rights in the balance as Supreme Court about to issue decision Voting rights in the balance as Supreme Court about to issue decision	Advocates Warn Of Dire Consequences If Voting Rights Act Loses In ... Advocates Warn Of Dire Consequences If Voting Rights Act Loses In ... Advocates Warn Of Dire Consequences If Voting Rights Act Loses In	If the court strikes Section 5 of Voting Rights Act | The Great Debate If the court strikes Section 5 of Voting Rights Act | The Great Debate If the court strikes Section 5 of Voting Rights Act | The Great Debate
Shelby County v Holder: Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Section ... Shelby County v Holder: Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Section ... Shelby County v Holder: Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Section	BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting ... BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting ... BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting	Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act | Detroit ... Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act | Detroit ... Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act | Detroit	062413_fxr_court_640.jpg 062413_fxr_court_640.jpg 062413_fxr_court_640.jpg
	GOVERNER BREWER HAS A WORD WITH THE OBAMANATION GOVERNER BREWER HAS A WORD WITH THE OBAMANATION GOVERNER BREWER HAS A WORD WITH THE OBAMANATION	Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362 Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362 Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362	Mother Therese of Saint Augustine and 15 Companions Mother Therese of Saint Augustine and 15 Companions Mother Therese of Saint Augustine and 15 Companions
The Words of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. The Words of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. The Words of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.	Ninoy Ninoy Ninoy	Candidates Have a Legal Right to Lie to Voters Candidates Have a Legal Right to Lie to Voters Candidates Have a Legal Right to Lie to Voters	John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House
John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House	John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House	John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House	John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House
John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House	John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House John B. & Isabella Leech House	Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal ...	Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act: 'Our country has ... Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act: 'Our country has ... The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that helped dismantle decades of discriminatory voting restrictions in the South when it passed 60 years ago. The vote was 5-4 ...
Supreme Court strikes down key section of Voting Rights Act Supreme Court strikes down key section of Voting Rights Act The decision leaves intact the rest of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to adopt or enforce laws that have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. But civil rights advocates say the provision struck down Tuesday was still needed ...	Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened ... Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened ... WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court has struck down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act that has long put Texas and most of the South under federal scrutiny. ... The case hinged on the future of Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act.	Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act Washington -- A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a centerpiece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in a marked victory for conservatives and Southern states. In one of the most ... The Justices declared Section 4 unconstitutional. Other ...	Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review Entry 7: It's not hypocritical to want the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA but not the Voting Rights Act. ... At issue is the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines “spouse,” and “marriage,” for all federal purposes, to exclude same-sex ...
BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting Rights Act BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting Rights Act In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The preclearance requirement in Section 5 was upheld, but the map of regions used to determine which areas of the country required to submit reapportionment ...	Supporters of keeping the law intact urged the justices to respect Congress's ... Supporters of keeping the law intact urged the justices to respect Congress's ... The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling unconstitutional a provision of the landmark civil rights legislation used to promote the political power of minority voters across large swaths of the southern United ...	SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision: Justices Strike Down Key Section SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision: Justices Strike Down Key Section The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act that mandates states with a history of racial discrimination seek federal approval before changing their election laws. In a 5-4 ruling, the Justices found Section 4 of the Act ...	Gay Marriage Awaits Supreme Court Decision, Part Of Voting Rights Act Struck ... Gay Marriage Awaits Supreme Court Decision, Part Of Voting Rights Act Struck ... The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, but did not rule on two much-anticipated cases on gay marriage. The Supreme Court has yet to decide Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenging California's gay marriage ban ...
My Brother Is Being Held Hostage At The Factory He Founded In China My Brother Is Being Held Hostage At The Factory He Founded In China People walk near the Supreme Court on June 13, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law that was passed to ensure minorities in the South could get out to vote. The Voting Rights Act requires states 9 ...	Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the critical Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Supreme Court upheld the Justice Department's ability to oversee the voting statutes of counties that have historically restricted the rights ...	Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act Section 4 Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act Section 4 Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act Section 4. Today the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder that Section 4 of the 1966 Voting Rights act is now unconstitutional. The court made the ruling by a vote of 5-4. Hosted by: Mike Sacks.	Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating federal enforcement over all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination. The court said it ...
Document: Supreme Court strikes down key section of the Voting Rights Act Document: Supreme Court strikes down key section of the Voting Rights Act Document: Supreme Court strikes down key section of the Voting Rights Act. By Julia Kern. Digital First Media. Posted: 06/25/2013 07:24:43 AM PDT. Advertisement. Print Email Font Resize Return to Top. We welcome reader feedback! Learn more about our ...	More: US Supreme Court struck down part of Voting Rights Act designed to ... More: US Supreme Court struck down part of Voting Rights Act designed to ... Loading... Loading items... SCOTUS Voting Rights Act challenge. More: US Supreme Court struck down part of Voting Rights Act designed to protect minority voters - @Reuters. Story metadata: Submitted June 25, 2013, 2:20 p.m. GMT by editor; Share ...

Supreme Court strikes down section of Voting Rights Act : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites

Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act, will affect ...

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning has struck down a part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and it will have an impact on Virginia. The court ruled, 5-4, to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. That's the part that ...

Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act ...

2 hours ago ... SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 25, 2013. U.S. Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act law aimed at protecting minority ...

Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act - NY Daily News

2 hours ago ... The Supreme Court threw out key elements of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, telling Congress to revise the critical formula by which one ...

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | KFOR.com

WASHINGTON - A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court stuck down a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act Tuesday. The nation's highest court ruled parts of the act unconstitutional, in effect, invalidating federal enforcement ...

Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act - Chicago Sun ...

2 hours ago ... The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with ...

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act - USA Today

12 minutes ago ... The Supreme Court swept away nearly 50 years of civil rights history, declaring a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional ...

COMRADE ENGVER GOES TO MOSCOW

LEAD: BY 9:30 A.M., THE DEPUTIES HAVE ALREADY BEGUN drifting into the semicircular chamber of the Supreme Soviet, half an hour before the bell signals the beginning of the session. The meeting place is contemporary and, by the grandiose norm of this country, intimate. Banks of wooden desks, sleek marble walls adorned by the gilt Soviet insignia, - By Bill Keller; Bill Keller, chief of The New York Timess Moscow bureau, was awarded the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for foreign reporting.

Daily Kos: Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. According to analysis from NBC's Pete Williams, the court upheld the Section 5 notion of preclearance—requiring locales with history of racial discrimination to ...

Do you think the Supreme Court should strike down the Voting Rights Act?

they just heard a challenge to Section 5 of the Act, which requires preclearance for procedural changes.

What is your opinion?

Answer: They are not considering striking down the act - simply one of the onerous provisions that has been obsolete for decades.
Category: Politics

BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting ...

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The preclearance requirement in Section 5 was upheld, b.

SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP; Weighty Cases Crowd Last 3 Months of the Term

With more than three months to go in its term, the Supreme Court on Monday will enter a concentrated period of unusual intensity and potential import. The justices, back from a brief recess, will begin six weeks of hearing arguments in one blockbuster case after another, a series of high-profile appeals that appear drawn from todays headlines and - Focus on major cases facing US Supreme Court in final three months of current term; court will hear Texas school districts appeal of ruling that bars practice of student-led prayers at public high school football games; will hear challenge to federal prosecution for burning down a private residence, focusing on whether Congress intended federal arson law to apply to private home and whether Congress had authority to do so under power to regulate interstate commerce; will examine constitutionality of Massachusetts Burma law, which prohibits state agencies from doing business with companies that do business in Myanmar; will rule on decision by Virginia appeals court effectively overturning Miradna ruling governing admissibility of confessions in federal prosecutions; will examine Nebraska law criminalizing partial-birth abortion; will rule on whether Boy Scouts have right, under First Amendment, to exclude gay members (M) - By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Is it ok for you when Supreme Court limits federal oversight of Voting Rights Act?

Based on CNN "The court said it is now up to congressional lawmakers to revise the law to meet constitutional scrutiny.

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to the current conditions," said Chief Justice John Roberts for the 5-4 conservative majority.

Section 4 of the law was struck down, the coverage formula used by the federal government to determine which states and counties are subject to continued oversight. Roberts said that formula from 1972 was outdated and unworkable."

Category: Elections

Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down By Supreme Court

2 hours ago ... The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates ...

Why is gay marriage illegal?

People that protest same sex marriage always site the bible for their beliefs. So why, in our Seperation of Church and State society, does it have any bearing on the law?

Answer: In a strictly legal view, the marriage of two individuals of the same sex should not be illegal. By placing a limit on marriage strictly to two members of opposite sexes, the Constitution is directly contradicted - first in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which states that any citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under its laws, and again through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - which allows states to ignore the marital contracts of same-sex couples that were formed in other states.

This itself directly violates the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section I), which decrees that ALL states must honor the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states as legally binding. Constitutionally, this means that all of the states are legally bound to honor the rights and implications of same-sex marriages formed in states that.permit them - even though the lower (and unconstitutional) law of the DOMA says otherwise.

The problem is that this law must be struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Federal Supreme Court - and, while it should be an extraordinarily obvious violation of the Constitution, the Justices of the Supreme Court are either themselves prejudiced against same-sex marriage, or are simply afraid of the political backlash from such a ruling - even though such fear is unfounded, as they are constitutionally guaranteed their position until death or resignation, and their salaries cannot be lowered by Congress.

Eventually, Congress will pass a law annulling the DOMA and mandating that states recognize the union of same-sex couples, or the Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the DOMA and strike it down as unconstitutional, which would require a new constitutional amendment to overrule - the amendment that former president Bush briefly pushed for in an attempt to justify this, by all accounts, illegal protocol..

Fortunately, as the country seems to be moving forward towards more widespread tolerance of homosexuality, it is unlikely that such an amendment will ever so much as reach the ballot, much less acquire the essential two-thirds majority to become law. In the (hopefully near) future, the ban on same-sex marriage will be a thing of the past, written into the history books as another ironed-out social injustice alongside the denial of voting rights to women, the ban of interracial marriage, and Jim Crow laws.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

The Bill of Rights is being put to an end? Is this true?

Quote: "In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.

The National Defense Authorization Act is being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesnt apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill, it essentially says it can apply to Americans "if we want it to.

Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 -- 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for.

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity."
By "last night," it means last night of December 3rd, 2011 I think.

Answer: It would seem the damage was done right after the 9-11 attacks, when a series of bills gave the military, with the president's oversight, to detain anyone - including American citizens and other lawful residents of the country - indefinitely if they were deemed to be connected with terrorist groups. The same charges of subverting, obviating or overriding the Bill of Rights were made then, as were made last year when the 2012 National Defence Authorization Act "affirmed" that these laws were still valid. Nothing new was added, and the bill goes to great lengths to ensure that the bill doesn't contain anything beyond what has already been in place for the past 10 years. It is written in the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), that it affirms nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.".

So, there is nothing new in this bill, that hasn't been around already for the past 10 years.

It should be noted that the Bill of Rights is still FIRMLY in effect, and that this or similar bills don't affect that at all. They simply outline grounds for over-riding some of those rights under some very specific circumstances.

A federal court just last month, declared this section of the bill to be unconstitutional. That means it can't be legally applied until the matter is settled in the Supreme Court, which will probably take at least a year or more. So, the offending part of the bill has already been struck down by the courts and if the president decides to ignore the court's ruling in any particular case, he would be violating the law of the land clearly. There is no indication that Obama might or might not do this, so i'd say most definitely "Don't Panic, and don't listen to extreme points of view or conspiracy theories involving dictatorships and military rule."
Category: Law & Ethics

Limits on redistricting?

what limits did supreme court place on redistricting?

Answer: Racial gerrymandering

The 2003 Texas redistricting refers to a highly controversial congressional redistricting plan appealed to the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. On June 28, 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the statewide redistricting as Constitutional, but struck down Congressional District 23 as racial gerrymandering in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting
Category: Politics

questions on vetoing and aprroving these laws?

OK SO PLEASE ANSWER THESE questions i know they seem a little absurd lol
EXPLAIINNN PLEASE :D


1.your client wants to become president of the U.S in 2016, he is now 34 and his bday is on January 16, can he serve?

2.the senate and house of Representatives have passed a bill requiring all teens including females to shave their heads. who can stop the law from taking affect?

3.A certain congressman is tired of living in washington D.C he wants to move back to his home state and run his ranch full time. He proposes that Congress not meet at all this year. Is his proposal constitutional?

4.You have a neighbor who was born and raised in Austria. She moved to the U.S five years ago. She loves politics and wants to hold any office - presidents, member of the house of Representatives- she dosent care which, can she?

5.the Senates 100 members cannot not agree on a law that forces all fast food restaurants to sell veggie burgers only. They are split right down in the middle 50 are in favor 50 are against. who can break the tie?

6.A blizzard strikes the nations capital. Only 200 of the 435 members of the house of reps show up for that day session. can they pass bills?

7.A member of Congress is asked by the president to become Secretary of defense. her comment is "cool. Now i can be both congresswoman and cabinet member. Ill have so much power and make a ton of money" , can she hold both position simultaneously?

8.the president gets mad at Illinois and decides to declare war on the state. Who can stop him from completing such a strange and unconstitutional act?

9.It has been revealed that the president has been stealing money from the treasury . HE now owns madagascar. HE purchased it with stolen money. Under the Constitution what actions should be taken against him

10.your client is having trouble with his mail service. Whos is the best person to call: his congresswoman, the president, or the Chief justice of the supreme court

11.in a Senate vote, 52 senators vote in favor of a treaty with Belarus. While 48 vote against. Is the treaty approved.

12.The people of the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana vote to become one gigantic Beautiful state. Whos approval do they need?

EXPLAIN EXLAIN plz and thank you 9 points best answer

Answer: 1. To be president, the person be 35 on election day. Elections are in November. Your guy will be 35 in January. He can't be president until 2020. (Constitution Article II)

2. Only an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. (Article III of the Constitution)

3. Yes. Article I section 3 says that Congress can meet every other year on vote of 2/3 of its members.

4. She can't be president but can hold any other office. (See articles I and II... to be a congressman you need to have lived here for only 1 year).

5. The President of the Senate according to Article I

6. A quorum is 40% according to Article I. So, yes.

7. The Vice President is both VP (of the Country) and President of the Senate. So, yes. (See also the Supreme Court case of Thomas H. Ipps v. Secretary Bob Sess

8. Only Congress can declare war. (Article II)

9. He can't buy a country. He can be indicted under Anti Money Laundering Act. (Article

10. None of the above. The postmaster general. (This is required by the Postal Act of 1843)

11. Only if the President has signed it. (See Article - the president signs treaties and a majority of the senate has to ratify)

12. Mine. (ha ha. lol. No). They need the approval of every legislature in every state. According to Article V Section 3, all legislatures have to approve the creation of any new states.
Category: Law & Ethics

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...

3 hours ago ... The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and since updated by ...

High court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act in 5-4 ruling ...

2 hours ago ... The 5-4 decision strikes down a key piece of the civil rights law designed to protect minorities from discrimination. The Supreme Court struck ...

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act | News ...

The Supreme Court says a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced until Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require close federal monitoring of elections.

SCOTUS strikes down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act » The Right ...

ATLANTIC WIRE – The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder on Tuesday. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. The court found that ...

Is the concept of feminism only concerned with the short term?

From what Ive read on the subject, as well as read in this section, feminism only concerns itself with the short term, rather than the long term. Several questions have been raised due to this:

- If absolute equality is obtained, how does one maintain it? How do you hit the breaks when both sexes are equal, and dont fly off into androgyny?

- How does one assure the same quality as seen currently when everyone is too afraid to violate this equality by deny someone a profession/service/etc?

- Will this create a nanny state where the government needs to hold everyones hand to make this work? Does the current ceiling effect in modern feminism beneigh that force is need to proceed further?

Answer: Is the concept of Feminism only concerned with the short term?
No. Fifty to one hundred years of activism isn't short term. Women's suffrage, legal birth control access, legal access to abortion, the ERA and pay equity took varying amounts of decades to achieve-the ERA still has not been passed; pay equity is definitely not being enforced.

-Women's suffrage was introduced in the US in the 1820's. US women did not get the right to vote in federal elections until 1920, when the 19th amendment was finally passed. -Black women did not get the opportunity to vote until the 1960's.

-Though the ERA was introduced in every session of Congress between 1923 and 1970, it almost never reached the floor of either the Senate or the House of Representatives for a vote—instead, it was usually "bottled up" in committee. Even though it finally was passed in 1972, it was not ratified. Fears of unisex bathrooms (which we now have) and women in combat (women are exposed to combat situations now as well) were part of the "scare tactics" used to stop the ratification of the ERA.
-In Congress, supporters of the ERA have re-introduced the amendment in Congress every term since 1982 without success. Many different feminist groups continue to work on the ERA today.

-The first legal restrictions on abortion appeared in the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy. By 1900, legislators at the urgings of the American Medical Association had enacted anti-abortion laws in most US states. It wasn't until the1973 case, Roe v. Wade when a woman challenged the Texas laws criminalising abortion the US Supreme Court finally allowed women the right to choose.
-The states are still working on taking away as many of these rights as they can, day by day, medical procedure by procedure. NARAL is active every day working on these issues.

-Easy public access to contraceptive devices in the United States aroused the ire of Anthony Comstock and others, who lobbied Congress until it passed (1873) a bill prohibiting the distribution of these devices across state lines or through the mail. The first U.S. birth control clinic, opened (1916) by Margaret Sanger in Brooklyn, N.Y., was closed by the police; she received a 30-day jail sentence. She later permanently established a clinic in New York City in 1923.
-Sanger also helped organize (1917) the National Birth Control League in the United States; in 1921 it became the American Birth Control League, and in 1942 the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Meanwhile, in 1918 an American judge ruled that contraceptive devices were legal as instruments for the prevention of disease, and the federal law prohibiting dissemination of contraceptive information through the mails was modified in 1936.
-Throughout the 1940s and 50s, birth control advocates were engaged in numerous legal suits.
-In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the one remaining state law (in Connecticut) prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
-It took from 1873 until 1965 before women had the legal right to contraceptives in every state in the US. If the right-wing had their way, there would be no legal contraceptives available to women, since even the "rhythm method" is considered immoral to them (as per the right-to-life national convention in 1987). Planned Parenthood works on this issue every day.

-Pay equity wasn't made law until 1963.Two laws protect workers against wage discrimination. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits unequal pay for equal or "substantially equal" work performed by men and women. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits wage discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. In 1981, the Supreme Court made it clear that Title VII is broader than the Equal Pay Act, and prohibits wage discrimination even when the jobs are **not** identical. However, wage discrimination laws are **poorly enforced** and cases are **extremely difficult** to prove and win. Stronger legislation is needed to ease the burden of filing claims and clarify the right to pay equity.

-Pay Equity activism today?
In the last few years, pay equity bills have been introduced in more than 25 legislatures. On the federal level, the Fair Pay Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton, and in the U.S. Senate by Senator Tom Harkin. The Fair Pay Act would expand the Equal Pay Act's protections against wage discrimination to workers in equivalent jobs with similar skills and responsibilities, even if the jobs are not identical. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Hillary Clinton and in the U.S. House by Representative Rosa DeLauro. The Paycheck Fairness Act would amend the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide more effective remedies to workers who are not being paid equal wages for doing equal work.
Category: Gender & Women's Studies

Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Of The Voting Rights Act

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The preclearance requirement in Section 5 was upheld, but the map of regions used to determine which areas of the country ...

Live Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision on the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act. Times reporters and editors are analyzing the Supreme Court decision and its implications, as well as the public's reaction. Coverage; All.

History/Government question and I need help!?

Can anyone tell me what the article James Madison "Explaining the Seperation of Powers" was about? Please dumb it down so I can understand.
Also if anyone could also tell me what Alexis De Tocqueville "Controlling Tyrannical Majorities" was about that would help me alot as well. Thanks!!

Answer: The legislative branch has the power to make laws—for example, the declaration of what acts are to be regarded as criminal. The executive branch has the authority to administer the law—primarily by bringing lawbreakers to trial—and to appoint officials and oversee the administration of government responsibilities. The judicial branch has the power to try cases brought to court and to interpret the meaning of laws under which the trials are conducted.

A government of separated powers is less likely to be tyrannical and more likely to follow the rule of law: the principle that government action must be constrained by laws. A separation of powers can also make a political system more democratic by making it more difficult for a single ruler, such as a monarch or a president, to become dictatorial. The division of powers also prevents one branch of government from dominating the others or dictating the laws to the public. Most democratic systems have some degree of separation of powers, but the United States stands as the preeminent example of the practice.

In the United States the separation of powers is a fundamental constitutional principle. Articles I through III of the Constitution of the United States place each of the basic powers of government in a separate branch. The legislative power is vested in Congress, the executive power in the president, and the judicial power in the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

An important aspect of the separation of powers is that the power of one branch should not be exercised by anyone who also holds a position in another branch. Under Article I, Section 6, no one elected to Congress may simultaneously serve as a member of the executive branch. In other words, a lawmaker may not also administer the laws. Another important feature of the separation of powers in the United States is judicial review. The courts, not Congress or the president, say what the law means when a case is before them. In appropriate cases, the courts may even strike down a law enacted by Congress, or order the executive branch to halt enforcement of a law or government policy, if they determine that the law or policy conflicts with the Constitution.

But the three branches are not completely sealed off from each other. For example, the president shares the lawmaking power with Congress because the president can veto any law, although Congress may then override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each house. The major exceptions to separation of powers are federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can write regulations, bring lawsuits, and decide certain kinds of cases. The president’s power to issue executive orders in some areas is another major exception to the separation of powers because the orders do not need congressional consent, and they have the same effect as laws.

Coalition Sign-On Letter to the Senate Urging Them to Reject Any Legislative Proposal Authorizing Detention Without Charge or Trial of Individuals Found in the United States. Madison can be considered responsible for making the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution.
Category: History

Are Libs ready to watch Obamas Voting Rights Act get gutted like a FlSH?

Obama and the Libs havent gained a single vote on the Court.

Cant wait until the bats crack the Obamas Voting Rights Act to pieces!


Supporters of the Voting Rights Act are painting a bleak picture of what it would mean for the rights of minority voters if the Supreme Court were to strike down the landmark 1965 law’s Section 5, which requires state and local governments with a history of disenfranchising minority voters (i.e. mostly in the south) to receive preclearance from the Justice Department or federal court before changing laws that affect voting.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/scotus-vra.php

Answer: You are all that is wrong with America.
Category: Politics

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | Fox News

2 hours ago ... In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments ...

Are Libs enjoying their lives now that the Voting Rights Act will be obIiterated by the Supreme Court?

“I think it’s a safe prediction to say that the Voting Rights Act, as it now stands, is not going to survive,” NBC’s Pete Williams reported. “The question is: how far will the Supreme Court go in striking parts of it down?”
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-looks-set-to-strike-down-heart-of-voting-rights-act/
Ssdcat:

You start off saying it wont be knocked down..then you edit it to say even if they do remove part of it the other part will survive.


....I smell your fear and smells good!

Answer: Even IF the SCOTUS strikes down portions of the Voting Rights Act, I think many in Congress (of both parties) will be so angered that they will re-write those sections into law; just as they did when the Court screwed the pooch on the Ledbetter case.

Thankfully the SCOTUS does not always get the final say.
Category: Politics