More: US Supreme Court struck down part of Voting Rights Act designed to ...


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





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 ...


Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | 870AM ...

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act | 870AM









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


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









Justices May Strike Down Part Of Voting Rights Act : NPR






Justices May Strike Down Part Of Voting Rights Act : NPR



Justices May Strike Down Part Of Voting Rights Act : NPR


Justices May Strike Down Part Of Voting Rights Act : NPR

Justices May Strike Down Part Of Voting Rights Act : NPR









Supreme Court strikes down sections of Voting Rights Act






Supreme Court strikes down sections of Voting Rights Act



Supreme Court strikes down sections of Voting Rights Act


Supreme Court strikes down sections of Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court strikes down sections of Voting Rights Act









Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Part of Voting Rights Act of 1965






Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Part of Voting Rights Act of 1965



Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Part of Voting Rights Act of 1965


Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Part of Voting Rights Act of 1965

Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Part of Voting Rights Act of 1965









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 ...


Gavel Grab » Will Supreme Court Strike Down Key Part of Voting ...

Gavel Grab » Will Supreme Court Strike Down Key Part of Voting









The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act ...






The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act ...



The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act ...


The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act ...

The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act









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 ...


Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down the Voting Rights Act's ...

Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down the Voting Rights Act's









Supreme Court and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: It's OK to ...






Supreme Court and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: It's OK to ...



Supreme Court and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: It's OK to ...


Supreme Court and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: It's OK to ...

Supreme Court and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: It's OK to









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 ...


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 Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...






Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...



Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...


Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...

Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act









Voting Rights Act faces key test in Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times






Voting Rights Act faces key test in Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times



Voting Rights Act faces key test in Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times


Voting Rights Act faces key test in Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times

Voting Rights Act faces key test in Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times









Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...






Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...



Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...


Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act ...

Supreme Court Could Strike Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act









Supreme Court Voting Rights Act 2012: Will the 2012 election lead ...






Supreme Court Voting Rights Act 2012: Will the 2012 election lead ...



Supreme Court Voting Rights Act 2012: Will the 2012 election lead ...


Supreme Court Voting Rights Act 2012: Will the 2012 election lead ...

Supreme Court Voting Rights Act 2012: Will the 2012 election lead









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


Voting rights in the balance as Supreme Court about to issue decision

Voting rights in the balance as Supreme Court about to issue decision









US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act ...






US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act ...



US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act ...


US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act ...

US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act









BYE BYE MISS AMERICAN PIE DROVE MY CHEVY TO THE LEVY BUT THE LEVY WAS DRY






BYE BYE MISS AMERICAN PIE DROVE MY CHEVY TO THE LEVY BUT THE LEVY WAS DRY



BYE BYE MISS AMERICAN PIE DROVE MY CHEVY TO THE LEVY BUT THE LEVY WAS DRY


BYE BYE MISS AMERICAN PIE DROVE MY CHEVY TO THE LEVY BUT THE LEVY WAS DRY

BYE BYE MISS AMERICAN PIE DROVE MY CHEVY TO THE LEVY BUT THE LEVY WAS DRY









John Mercer Langston






John Mercer Langston



John Mercer Langston


John Mercer Langston

John Mercer Langston









[Uhuru Kenyatta]: Presidential Inauguration Speech [9 April 2013]






[Uhuru Kenyatta]: Presidential Inauguration Speech [9 April 2013]



[Uhuru Kenyatta]: Presidential Inauguration Speech [9 April 2013]


[Uhuru Kenyatta]: Presidential Inauguration Speech [9 April 2013]

[Uhuru Kenyatta]: Presidential Inauguration Speech [9 April 2013]





























Poll Tax Receipt, Jefferson Parish






Poll Tax Receipt, Jefferson Parish



Poll Tax Receipt, Jefferson Parish


Poll Tax Receipt, Jefferson Parish

Poll Tax Receipt, Jefferson Parish









The Fifth Second Chance ~ George Anastaplo






The Fifth Second Chance ~ George Anastaplo



The Fifth Second Chance ~ George Anastaplo


The Fifth Second Chance ~ George Anastaplo

The Fifth Second Chance ~ George Anastaplo









THE HORRIBLE POTUS THAT IMAGINES HIMSELF A KING






THE HORRIBLE POTUS THAT IMAGINES HIMSELF A KING



THE HORRIBLE POTUS THAT IMAGINES HIMSELF A KING


THE HORRIBLE POTUS THAT IMAGINES HIMSELF A KING

THE HORRIBLE POTUS THAT IMAGINES HIMSELF A KING









Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362






Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362



Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362


Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362

Jessup International Moot Court 2012 Compromis - IMG_5362









A PRESIDENTIAL REVELATION






A PRESIDENTIAL REVELATION



A PRESIDENTIAL REVELATION


A PRESIDENTIAL REVELATION

A PRESIDENTIAL REVELATION









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









Mother Therese of Saint Augustine and 15 Companions






Mother Therese of Saint Augustine and 15 Companions



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.


The Words of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

The Words of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.









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 PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT






SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT



SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT


SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the map that determines which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws. The ruling, a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts ...









Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review






Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review



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 ...









Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law






Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law



Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law


Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law

By a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that establishes a formula to identify states that may require extra scrutiny by the Justice Department regarding voting procedures ...









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 ...



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 key provision of Voting Rights Act






Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act



Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act


Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act

Michael Doyle | McClatchy Washington Bureau. Michael Doyle McClatchy Newspapers. 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.









Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act






Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act



Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act


Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court upheld the Justice Department's ability to oversee the voting statutes of counties that have historically restricted the rights of racial minorities, but the high court struck down the map that was used in the original Voting Right ...









Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by US High Court (2)






Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by US High Court (2)



Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by US High Court (2)


Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by US High Court (2)

A divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out a core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rolling back a landmark law that opened the polls to millions of southern blacks. The justices, voting 5-4, said Congress lacked grounds for requiring some states, and ...









Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court






Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court



Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court


Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court

Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court. By Julie Westfall. Digital First Media. Posted: 06/25/2013 07:20:47 AM PDT. Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has halted the use of a key part of ...









Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court






Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court



Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court


Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court

Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court. By Julie Westfall. Digital First Media. Posted: 06/25/2013 07:20:47 AM PDT. Key part of Voting Rights Act struck down by Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has halted the use of a key part of ...









U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT






U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT



U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT


U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act, a Civil Rights-era law designed to prevent voter suppression in nine states and parts of seven other states. In Shelby County, Ala. vs. Holder, the justices voted 5-4 to ...









READ: Supreme Court strikes down key voting act provision






READ: Supreme Court strikes down key voting act provision



READ: Supreme Court strikes down key voting act provision


READ: Supreme Court strikes down key voting act provision

READ: Supreme Court strikes down key voting act provision. By Sarah Kliff, Published: June 25, 2013 at 10:21 ... In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. “Its formula,” Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog ...









Developing Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights






Developing Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights



Developing Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights


Developing Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights

The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder on Tuesday striking down 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 to it. Coverage ...









Supreme Court Strikes Down Provision of Voting Rights Law






Supreme Court Strikes Down Provision of Voting Rights Law



Supreme Court Strikes Down Provision of Voting Rights Law


Supreme Court Strikes Down Provision of Voting Rights Law

WASHINGTON | The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections. The ...









Republicans facing dilemma if Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act






Republicans facing dilemma if Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act



Republicans facing dilemma if Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act


Republicans facing dilemma if Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – The much anticipated decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act remains much anticipated. The court this morning handed down decisions in only three cases and the Voting Rights Act case ...









Court strikes down part of voting-rights law






Court strikes down part of voting-rights law



Court strikes down part of voting-rights law


Court strikes down part of voting-rights law

(WASHINGTON TIMES) In a decision that marks the end of a major civil rights-era reform, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the federal government can no longer force states and jurisdictions with a long-past history of voting discrimination to have ...









Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ID Law as Voting Rights Battles ...






Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ID Law as Voting Rights Battles ...



Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ID Law as Voting Rights Battles ...


Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ID Law as Voting Rights Battles ...

(Photo: Stephen Crowley / The New York Times)Voting rights advocates are celebrating Monday's Supreme Court ruling that struck down a provision of an Arizona law requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote ...





Supreme Court strikes down part 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. 5 of ...









The Price of the Ticket: Barack Obama and Rise and Decline of Black Politics: ... 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 ...



WASHINGTON WATCH: Voting Rights Act And ...









This past week, the Virginia state legislature passed a strict, new voter ID law. It has two more ... Duration: 473 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:46:51 -0800









Voting Rights Act Challenged In Court - YouTube






Voting Rights Act Challenged In Court - YouTube



Voting Rights Act Challenged In Court - YouTube









Voting Rights Act Challenged In Court ... is the cornerstone of our democracy, and also if the ... Duration: 2018 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:00:37 -0700









U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Racist Arizona ...






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









Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Rally - YouTube






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









Williams: Votes are there to strike down DOMA - YouTube






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









Voting Rights Act Protest at the Supreme Court ...






Voting Rights Act Protest at the Supreme Court ...



Voting Rights Act Protest at the Supreme Court ...









Voting Rights Act Protest at the Supreme Court .... WATCH: Voting Rights Act And Voting ... Duration: 284 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:54:12 -0800









Has the Supreme Court become the new Monarchy ...






Has the Supreme Court become the new Monarchy ...



Has the Supreme Court become the new Monarchy ...









The Voting Rights Act was passed 48 years ago - to ensure tha... ... Will the Supreme Court ... Duration: 679 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:06:13 -0800









Supreme Court To Hear Voting Rights Act ...






Supreme Court To Hear Voting Rights Act ...



Supreme Court To Hear Voting Rights Act ...









WASHINGTON WATCH: Voting Rights Act And Voting Right May Be Struck Down By The ... Duration: 536 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:39:22 -0800









Supreme Court Hears Challenge To The Voting ...






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 Are Still Under Attack; Supreme Court ...






Voting Rights Are Still Under Attack; Supreme Court ...



Voting Rights Are Still Under Attack; Supreme Court ...









7:25. Watch Later What If The Supreme Court Strikes Down Sec. 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









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 ...









The Supreme Court on the 1965 Voting Rights Act .... Rights Act And Voting Right May Be ... Duration: 498 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:03:51 -0700









Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Voting Rights ...






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 Voting Rights Act ... Duration: 448 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:54:49 -0800









Is Discrimination Provision of Voting Rights Act ...






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









Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ...






Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ...



Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ...









Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Registration Citizenship .... Save Dr. King's Dream ... Duration: 169 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:29:01 -0700









Voting Rights Act in the Crosshairs (with Ari Berman ...






Voting Rights Act in the Crosshairs (with Ari Berman ...



Voting Rights Act in the Crosshairs (with Ari Berman ...









The Nation's Ari Berman, reported from the Supreme Court on the fate of the Voting Rights ... Duration: 958 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:32:36 -0800









The Supreme Court Considers the Voting Rights ...






The Supreme Court Considers the Voting Rights ...



The Supreme Court Considers the Voting Rights ...









The Supreme Court Considers the Voting Rights Act. OdysseyNetworks·633 .... What If The ... Duration: 289 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:46:07 -0800









The People March for Voting Rights in Selma, AL ...






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









The "Citizens United" for Voting Rights? Civil ...






The "Citizens United" for Voting Rights? Civil ...



The "Citizens United" for Voting Rights? Civil ...









The U.S. Supreme Court is considering overturning the 1965 ... ... WASHINGTON WATCH ... Duration: 93 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:50:01 -0800









US supreme court to hear voting rights case - YouTube






US supreme court to hear voting rights case - YouTube



US supreme court to hear voting rights case - YouTube









The US Supreme Court is to hear a challenge to a key section of the ... WATCH: Voting Rights ... Duration: 161 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:38:49 -0800









supreme court strikes down arizona voter ...






supreme court strikes down arizona voter ...



supreme court strikes down arizona voter ...









supreme court strikes down arizona voter registration law 142855720 ... Dream Act - Supreme ... Duration: 301 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:01:13 -0700









US supreme court to hear voting rights case to ...






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 Rights ... Duration: 161 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:26:42 -0800









Voting Rights Law Under Fire in Supreme Court ...






Voting Rights Law Under Fire in Supreme Court ...



Voting Rights Law Under Fire in Supreme Court ...









... 1965 Voting Rights Act is being challenged in the Supreme Court case, ... morning to ... Duration: 151 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:52:18 -0800









Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Case - YouTube






Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Case - YouTube



Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Case - YouTube









Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Case .... Rights Act And Voting Right May Be Struck ... Duration: 121 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sat, 11 May 2013 17:06:08 -0700





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

Live Coverage of Supreme Court Decisions - NYTimes.com

Holder on Tuesday striking down 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 to it. Coverage; All. Back to Top. 0 New ...

what was the majority opinion of hte supreme court case lochner v new york?

did this argument present the best legal arguments?

Answer: The case of Lochner v. New York was on the Supreme Court's docket over 100 years ago, in 1905. The Court, by a narrow vote of 5 to 4, struck down a New York labor law which set a maximum limit on the number of hours people could work in a bakery. Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justices David Brewer,
Henry Brown, Rufus Peckham, and Joseph McKenna were the members in the Court majority.

Rufus Peckham wrote the majority opinion, stating that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (do not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"). Here is an excerpt from his biographical info as it appears in The Supreme Court Justices, Illustrated Biographies 1789-1993.

"Peckham believed that the Court's role was to draw strict lines separating the powers of state governments, the rights of the individual, and the authority of the federal government, and then to police those boundaries. He favored government regulation of business only where interstate commerce was directly and substantially affected. He was a strong proponent of the individual's right to freedom of contract as part of his general right to liberty, which he described as the right to 'be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out the purposes above mentioned.'
"In 1905 he wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case, Lochner v. New York, which ruled unconstitutional a New York state law limiting bakery workers to a ten-hour day or sixty-hour workweek. He argued that the state had overstepped its powers in regulating workers' hours and wages because safeguarding the public health was not at issue. 'Clean and wholesome bread does not depend upon whether the baker works ten hours per day or 60 hours a week.' "

Another member of the Lochner majority was David Brewer. Here is some of his biographical info.

"Within four years of [Brewer's] appointment, the Court began using broad concepts of 'life, liberty, and property' as a basis for invalidating the income tax, weakening the Sherman Antitrust Act, and permitting the use of the judicial injunction as a weapon against organized labor. Because of these decisions, Brewer has traditionally been considered a conservative stalwart and the member of the Court most sympathetic to business interests and the rights of property. ...
"According to Brewer, the individual, free and independant, must be protected from whatever seems to harm his liberty, whether corporation, union, government, or the individual himself. Brewer's ... natural sympathies lay with the rugged settlers and homesteaders who settled the frontier, rather than with the adventurers and speculators who came later and sought government assistance to make their fortunes. The themes that show up in the early Brewer decisions -- concern and admiration for the individual, the right of private capital to be unhampered by government regulations, the appeal to frontier values of self-denial and thrift, the references to Christian and biblical virtues -- all attest to the strong religious and frontier influence that formed his judicial philosophy.
"He favored the idea of limited government and of limited state intervention into the economy. He reluctantly accepted that the federal and state governments had the power to regulate the rates charged by businesses, provided the regulation was fair, reviewable by courts, and limited to those enterprises that had received favors from government and thereby voluntarily incurred an obligation. The principle he supported for determining fairness was that regulation should neither deprive the company of profit nor burden it with unreasonable operating expenses.
"In general, Brewer believed that 'men should be able to take care of themselves and not be coddled by protection.' Hence, he consistently dissented from opinions affirming Munn v. Illinois, a case decided just before his appointment. The decision had allowed the state legislature to regulate businesses dedicated to public use or serving the public interest. Brewer's dissenting opinions in two subsequent cases expressed the minority view that the 'public interest' doctrine of Munn unlawfully and unreasonably interfered with private enterprise."

And another supporter of Lochner was Henry Brown.

"Justice Brown saw himself as moderately conservative, and he usually stood with the majority of his colleagues in their view of government and the Constitution. Writing for the Court in Holden v. Hardy (1898), Brown upheld states' rights to regulate labor conditions; his argument expressed great concern for the hazards posed by the mining industry for its workers. He was, however, also in the majority in Lochner v. New York (1905), which held invalid a maximum hours law for bakers. In his view, the liberty to make contracts was such a fundamental right that it could be abridged by the government only for a good reason. He did not see the regulation of bakers' hours as a true health and safety issue, as he did for miners."

In answer to your question whether or not these were the best legal arguments: the answer is firmly NO. These Justices were clearly getting their own personal beliefs confused with a correct reading of the Constitution. Justice Holmes wrote one of the dissenting opinions and that dissenting opinion was nearly perfect. Holmes clearly had the better interpretation of the Constitution.
Category: Government

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: The Vice-Presidential Debate; Excerpts From the Debate Between the Vice-Presidential Candidates in Cleveland

The Vice-Presidential Debate: Theres a Fundamental Difference of Opinion HereThe Vice-Presidential Debate: Theres a Fundamental Difference of Opinion HereFollowing are excerpts from the vice-presidential debate last night between Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, as recorded by The New York Times. The - Excerpts from vice presidential debate between Vice Pres Dick Cheney and Sen John Edwards (L)

Enforcing Civil Rights: Will the Supreme Court Strike Down the ...

Court Strike Down the Voting Rights Act and ... Three years ago, an ideologically- divided Supreme Court appeared poised on the precipice of a .... part a number of federal statutes, including two of the most important modern federal anti-.

Liberals brace for Supreme Court decision on voting rights - NBC ...

Bracing for an impending Supreme Court decision that could limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act, liberal legal experts and advocates are assessing what to do if the court strikes down a central part of the law. Addressing ...

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

where did judicial restraint come from?

im having trouble figuring this out.

Answer: Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.

It is the view that the Supreme Court (and other lesser courts) should not read the judges' own philosophies or policy preferences into the constitution and laws and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state governments within their constitutional spheres of authority. On such a view, judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.

A Judicial restraint and individual U.S. Supreme Court case of Luther v. Borden, 1849 - is sometimes called the first instance of judicial restraint. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, § 4).

Martin Luther was part of the Dorr Rebellion, an attempt to overthrow the charter government of Rhode Island that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a political effort but turned violent. Martin Luther was arrested by Luther M. Borden, a state official, who searched his home and allegedly damaged his property.
Category: Other - Politics & Government

Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Part of the Voting Rights Act ...

Jan 10, 2012 ... The court's ruling on a Texas redistricting case could transform the nation's approach to minority voting rights -- and determine which party ...

US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act ...

Feb 27, 2013 ... The US supreme court appeared to be leaning toward striking down cornerstone civil rights legislation that has protected African Americans' ...

Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down the Voting Rights Act's Section 5

Feb 27, 2013 ... Adam Winkler on why the Supreme Court, led by Roberts, is likely to strike down a provision of the act.

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN; Excerpts From the Debate Between the Vice Presidential Candidates in Cleveland

Following are excerpts from the vice presidential debate last night in Cleveland between Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, as recorded by The New York Times. The moderator was Gwen Ifill of PBS. A full transcript is at www.nytimes.com. The Iraq War MS. IFILL -- Vice President Cheney, there have been new

Reconstruction in the south after the civil war..?

Im writing a newspaper for a school project and one of the articles has to be about reconstruction in the North and in the South, Ive read a lot of links, but Im having a really hard time understanding. I just need a basic summary of what happened during the reconstruction period in the North and South. If anyone could give me a simple link, or explain it in laymans terms, Id greatly appreciate it! :)

Answer: After the end of the Civil War, as part of the on-going process of Reconstruction, the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts. Fulfillment of the requirements of the Acts were necessary for the former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union. The Acts excluded Tennessee, which had already ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and had been readmitted to the Union.

A key feature of the Acts included the creation of five military districts, each commanded by a general, which would serve as the acting government for the region. In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution, which would have to be approved by Congress. The states also were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and grant voting rights to black men.

President Andrew Johnson's vetoes of these measures were overridden by Congress. After Ex Parte McCardle (1867) came before the Supreme Court, Congress feared that the Court might strike the Reconstruction Acts down as unconstitutional. To prevent this, Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, revoking to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case.

I hope this help a little.(:
Fan me, so I may be able to help you in the future.(:
Category: History

Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act with Striking Down of Section 4

(The Atlantic) -- 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 the ...

Are other Conservative proud of Scalia for standing up to Obaama in DENOUNClNG RAClAL ENTlTLEMENT?

“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/

Answer: You think we didn't have a Voting Rights Act until there was a President Obama?

Why would you think that?

The Act hasn't changed since Obama took office, and it has barely changed in 49 years.
Category: Politics

Who Can Help Me With My History Quick Please !?

Why did African Americans pursue civil rights more vigorously after World War II?
(Points : 3)
With the population explosion there were more African Americans to advocate for civil rights.

African Americans resented not being eligible for the educational benefits of the GI Bill.

Despite service in the military, African Americans returned to find that Jim Crow laws were still in place.

Television depicted affluence across society that African Americans hoped to capture.


Why did blacks begin to expect more civil rights after World War II?
(Points : 3)
Whites in the South had begun to integrate blacks into the political process.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had desegregated the military during the war.

Blacks had gained confidence to compete in a white-dominated society.

Blacks had experienced considerable racial equality in the armed forces.


Which civil rights advocate became a Supreme Court justice?
(Points : 3)
Thurgood Marshall

Clarence Thomas

Medgar Evers

James Meredith


How did state legislatures in the South react to the Brown v. Board of Education ruling?
(Points : 3)
They filed lawsuits in an attempt to overturn the Supreme Courts decision.

They enacted laws to speed up the process of desegregation in state school districts.

They enacted laws and policies to block the integration of public schools.

They did nothing.


How did the Montgomery bus boycott help the African Americans struggle for civil rights?
(Points : 3)
The Alabama legislature began to pass laws that quickly desegregated Alabama society.

The boycott showed that civil rights for African Americans could be easily won.

The Supreme Court struck down Alabamas requirement of segregation on buses.

The boycott helped many African Americans start businesses in Montgomery.


What pressured the Kennedy administration to add the power of the presidency to the civil rights struggle after the events in Birmingham, Alabama?
(Points : 3)
television coverage of the violence

congressional support for his legislative agenda

Supreme Court orders to protect civil rights

the threat by civil rights leaders to use violence to achieve their aims


According to his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," what did Martin Luther King, Jr., believe? (Points : 3)
African Americans should continue working for civil rights.

New laws should provide exceptions for the injustices that African Americans had suffered.

One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

African American protestors should not be subject to laws regarding protests.


. Where did Martin Luther King, Jr., deliver his now famous "I Have a Dream" speech?
(Points : 3)
Washington, D.C.

Little Rock, Arkansas

Birmingham, Alabama

Selma, Alabama


9. How did the civil rights movement begin to change in the mid-1960s?
(Points : 3)
White leaders joined black leaders in persuading whites to join the movement.

Congress passed additional laws to remove loopholes.

As more laws were passed, their provisions were more easily implemented.

Many black leaders began to take a more militant approach to civil rights.


10. Which event gave President Johnson the support he needed to push for passage of the Voting Rights Act?
(Points : 3)
"Bloody Sunday" in Selma

Montgomery bus boycott

Project C

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom


11. Which was a major provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
(Points : 3)
eliminated voter discrimination

outlawed segregation in public education

banned bias in hiring

created equal pay


12. Why was the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education a significant milestone in the civil rights movement?
(Points : 3)
It declared that "separate but equal" schools are fundamentally unequal.

It mandated that public schools in the South receive federal aid.

It declared that the principle of "separate but equal" is acceptable.

It required school curriculum to include information on the civil rights movement.



13. Which was one of the most important educational initiatives in Lyndon Johnsons Great Society?
(Points : 3)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Head Start

Pell Grants

creation of the Department of Education


14. Which two programs were passed as part of Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty?
(Points : 3)
Womens Health Coverage and Unemployment Insurance

Medicare and Medicaid

Welfare and Social Security

Food Stamps and

Answer: 1) Why did African Americans pursue civil rights more vigorously after World War II? (Points : 3)
--- Despite service in the military, African Americans returned to find that Jim Crow laws were still in place.

2) Why did blacks begin to expect more civil rights after World War II? (Points : 3)
--- Blacks had experienced considerable racial equality in the armed forces.

3) Which civil rights advocate became a Supreme Court justice? (Points : 3)
--- Thurgood Marshall (He was the 1st one [So I think this is the answer])
Clarence Thomas (He was the 2nd)

4) How did state legislatures in the South react to the Brown v. Board of Education ruling? (Points:3)
--- They enacted laws to speed up the process of desegregation in state school districts.

5) How did the Montgomery bus boycott help the African Americans' struggle for civil rights?(Points:3)
--- The boycott showed that civil rights for African Americans could be easily won.

6) What pressured the Kennedy administration to add the power of the presidency to the civil rights struggle after the events in Birmingham, Alabama? (Points : 3)
--- IDK

7) According to his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," what did Martin Luther King, Jr., believe? (Points:3)
--- African Americans should continue working for civil rights.

8) Where did Martin Luther King, Jr., deliver his now famous "I Have a Dream" speech?(Points : 3)
--- Washington, D.C.

9) How did the civil rights movement begin to change in the mid-1960s? (Points : 3)
--- As more laws were passed, their provisions were more easily implemented.

10) Which event gave President Johnson the support he needed to push for passage of the Voting Rights Act? (Points : 3)
--- "Bloody Sunday" in Selma

11) Which was a major provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (Points : 3)
--- Outlawed segregation in public education

12) Why was the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education a significant milestone in the civil rights movement? (Points : 3)
--- It declared that "separate but equal" schools are fundamentally unequal.

13) Which was one of the most important educational initiatives in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society?
(Points : 3)
--- Elementary and Secondary Education Act

14) Which two programs were passed as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty? (Points : 3)
--- Medicare and Medicaid

I hope this help.(:
Fan me, so I may be able to help you in the future.(:
Category: History

IMPEACHMENT; The Debate on Articles of Impeachment Against President Clinton

Following are excerpts from the House debate today on article of impeachment against President Clinton, as recorded by the Federal News Service, a private transcription agency: Nita M. Lowey Democrat of New York I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. Our founding fathers viewed impeachment as a mechanism of last resort to protect the nation - Excerpts from statements by members of Congress during House debate over articles of impeachment against Pres Clinton; includes statements by Reprs Nita M Lowey, Carolyn C Kilpatrick, Edward J Markey, Howard Coble, James C Greenwood, Bernard Sanders, James F Sensenbrenner Jr, Ernest J Istook Jr, Luis V Gutierrez, Bill Delahunt, Jay Dickey, John Thune, John Edward Porter, Bruce F Vento, Marge Roukema, Ron Packard, Charles B Rangel, Charlie Norwood (L)

The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act ...

Mar 1, 2013 ... Justice Antonin Scalia is really worried about whether the Voting Rights Act is fair to white people. (Jeffrey MacMillan / The Washington Post).

Identify two organized groups that oppose authorization of violence against women act?



Answer: "Various persons and groups, including Marc H. Rudov, Glenn Sacks, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR), and African-Americans for VAWA Reform (AAVR), have voiced concerns that VAWA violates due process, equal protection, and other civil rights."

"In 2000, in a controversial 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison on federalism grounds. Only the civil rights remedy of VAWA was struck down. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.[6]"

From Wikipedia article
Category: Law & Ethics

What did the Supreme Court decide in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?



Answer: To strike down a part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a.k.a., "McCain-Feingold') because it violated the free speech rights of unions and corporations.

Everyone and every group of people have a constitutional right to spend all the money they want and can afford on political ads, trying to communicate to voters which candidates they should or should not vote for.
Category: Government

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Section 4 of Voting ...

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The U.S. Supreme Court this morning struck down the coverage formula provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 4. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights ...

Over time who is more likely to leave the conservative side of the Supreme Court: John Roberts or Samuel Alito

A. Chief Justice John Roberts

or

B. Associate Justice Samuel Alito


Please do not say neither because there are only two choices to select from. Keep in mind that Justices have the freedom to change ideology and this phenomenon has occurred several times throughout history. Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower, George Bush, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, John Kennedy, and Richard Nixon’s SCOTUS nominees changed somewhat during their respective judgeships.
Key phrase people: "more likely"

Answer: The choices are very difficult...

Alito has proved to be extremely, extremely extreme far right when it comes to social and fiscal conservatism. John Roberts hasn't really vocalized her true feelings on issues to be able to make an honest choice.

If I had to guess based on limited court decisions, I would say Roberts. Roberts seems to be very hardcore when it comes to the powers of the Executive Branch; but then again, so is Alito.

Here are a few cases where Alito and Roberts voted the same... I wrote these in an editorial last summer:

•By 5-4, the Court ruled voluntary integration of schools is unconstitutional. The case stemmed around 2 cities’ school district plans using race to place students in schools and did that practice violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. In the 1954 precedent case that outlawed school segregation, Brown versus Board of Education, a school can use a student’s race in assigning schools if there is a narrowly tailored, compelling reason. The school districts argued they had compelling interests in reducing racial isolation in their schools, in achieving a diverse student body population and in combating the effects of segregated housing patterns. The majority said race assignment is not narrowly tailored to achieve race balance and that is not compelling. The dissent said if the interests the school districts asserted are not compelling then what is and the plans were narrowly tailored in being a very limited and diminished use of race. Basically, the two sides disagreed over what circumstances entail the kind of compelling interest that justifies using race as a factor in devising a government policy.

•By 5-4, the Court struck down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, also known as Campaign Finance Reform. The ruling says Congress can not regulate political ads unless the government can prove there is no reasonable interpretation of the ad other than that it advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. The case involved an anti-abortion group, Wisconsin Right to Life, broadcasting a campaign ad during the final 2 months before the 2004 election. The ad instructed viewers to urge the two Wisconsin senators not to oppose President Bush’s judicial nominee. Local broadcasters said the message violated campaign law because of its timing, because it mentioned candidates by name and because corporations and unions paid for it. The dissent said the ruling would, once again, allow corporations and unions to fund the same kind of ads from their general treasuries that Congress sought to ban.

•By 5-4, the Court ruled schools could restrict student free speech if that speech entailed advocating illegal drug use. The case involved an Alaskan high school student, Joseph Frederick, who was suspended for displaying a banner stating ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ across the street from his high school during an Olympic torch relay 5 years ago. The dissent argued no one’s rights were intruded upon and no educational program had been interfered with. They felt a higher standard was needed to qualify limiting a student’s 1st Amendment right to free speech.

•By 5-4, the Court ruled taxpayers do not have ‘legal standing’ to challenge President Bush’s faith-based programs. The case involved a ‘Freedom from Religion’ group arguing their taxpayer money was being used to promote religion and favored religious organizations over non-religious organizations in violation of the establishment clause. ‘Legal standing’, when involving taxpayers challenging government expenditures, requires the expenditure or program be specifically mandated by Congress. Here, Mr. Bush’s faith-based programs were implemented by an executive order that bypassed Congress as an appropriation to the Executive Branch with no act by Congress. The dissent stated there is no difference between a specific mandated appropriation by Congress and a general appropriation to the Executive Branch because both are taxpayer dollars and the allegation is those taxpayer dollars are being used for religious purposes.
Category: Government

THE SUPREME COURT: OVERVIEW; In a Momentous Term, Justices Remake the Law, and the Court

The Supreme Court term that ended last week will leave as big an imprint as any in recent memory -- not only on the country, but on the court itself in ways few could have expected when the term began. Not only are the justices, whose average age is near 70, now involved in an unanticipated dialogue about the nature of human sexuality, they have - Linda Greenhouse review of momentous Supreme Court term that will leave huge impact on American law and on Court itself, where justices whose average age is near 70 show new attentiveness to legal and social developments in nation; rulings preserved affirmative action, found constitutional due process protection for private sexual behavior of homosexuals and opened states to lawsuits for violations of federal family leave law that combats stereotypes about female workers domestic responsibilities; three rulings give constitutional legitimacy to rather widely supported cultural changes; rulings in closely divided cases show pivotal position of Sandra Day OConnor, who was in majority in all but two of fourteen 5-to-4 votes; summary of decisions on issues involving equality, criminal law, federal authority, business, free speech and property rights; photos (L) - By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Describe the effects that the Military Reconstruction Act had on the South.?

Best answer!

Answer: After the end of the Civil War, as part of the on-going process of Reconstruction, the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts. Fulfillment of the requirements of the Acts were necessary for the former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union. The Acts excluded Tennessee, which had already ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and had been readmitted to the Union.

A key feature of the Acts included the creation of five military districts, each commanded by a general, which would serve as the acting government for the region. In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution, which would have to be approved by Congress. The states also were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and grant voting rights to black men.

President Andrew Johnson's vetoes of these measures were overridden by Congress. After Ex Parte McCardle (1867) came before the Supreme Court, Congress feared that the Court might strike the Reconstruction Acts down as unconstitutional. To prevent this, Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, revoking to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case.

I hope this help.(:
Fan me, so I may be able to help you in the future.(:
Category: History

Which action could eliminate the electoral college?

Which action could eliminate the electoral college?

1. a Supreme Court ruling
2. a Presidential order
3. passage of legislation by congress
4. ratification of a constitutional amendment

Answer: 4. ratification of a constitutional ammendement

Ratifying a constitutional ammendment is the only thing that can eliminate a portion of the Constitution.

Congress can pass any legislation it likes, and the President can sign it too, if he likes making said legislation the law of the land. It remains so until changed by further legislation OR by someone who has been harmed or otherwise affected by it (but usually with the presumption the effect was harmful) going to federal court and challenging the law itself, or a portion of it, as being incompatible with something in the Constitution.

For instance, a soldier might be ordered by his superior officer to not participate in the political process by giving a speech or other communication supporting a particular candidate or issue. The officer might have on his side a recently passed and signed law requiring military personnel to not do so. The soldier is then legally required to follow that order as it is a lawful one. However, he might feel harmed by said law (and therefore by the lawful order). He might then enter federal court and sue to have the law declared incompatible with rights he has which are specified in the Constitution. If he succeeds (and in that example he would), then the law is removed because the Supreme Court has ruled it was not a law that the Congress and President were legally allowed to make in the first place. If the soldier had done the act after the order not to, and had been punished, the Supreme Court's decision removes his conviction and his punishment ends.

However, the Supreme Court can only rule on the constitutionality of laws made under the Constitution, NOT on what is contained within the Constitution itself. So it cannot, for instance, rule that the Ammendment limiting Presidents from serving a third term is unconstitutional. Once that Ammendment became part of the Constitution itself, it went beyond the Supreme Court's reach.

The Electoral College is part of the Constitution itself and cannot be touched by the Supreme Court. Congress and the President could make a law wiping its portion of the process out, but someone would almost certainly challenge that law and the Supreme Court would strike it off the books.

The catches are:

1) The Supreme Court might actually vote that the law is not ununconstitutional regardless of the actual facts of the matter. Nothing about the Constitution forces them to vote the facts of any matter. They can be in cahoots with Congress and the President on the matter and simply shove it down your throat.

They can also make things up out of whole cloth. A right to "privacy" (that somehow does not mean people snooping on you are violating your Constitutional rights) was created out of nothing to permit abortion under the idea that controlling what happens to your own body is a matter of this fictional privacy. But prostitution is not a Constitutional right... go figure. I don't care about abortion, by the way, I just mention it as a way the Supreme Court can ignore facts and the written words in the Constitution in their decisions, in case the idea in the last paragraph seems impossible to imagine happening.

2) Many times someone has to literally suffer the harm that occurs before a court case is permitted. Many times one of the Circuit Courts will take a case that seeks what's called an injunction which prevents action being taken to enforce a law (in this example) until the case has been decided. But they don't have to. They can simply refuse, then consider the case, and say "No harm has occurred yet so go away. " So you could find the law I mentioned being enforced completely through a President being elected without the Electoral College portion of the process and only then, after the new President is actually in office and no relief of your harm exists, only then the courts taking the case. So we could see that happen and only after the fact seeing the law struck off the books. And nothing would actually prevent all the players doing it again and again, election after election, until we tire of it and ratify an ammendment removing the Electoral College.

Yikes.

As to Presidential Orders, Congress passed legislation many years ago, and has added to it, allowing the President to issue Presidential Orders, sometimes in secret (!!!) or partially so, which are actual laws. The mechanism here is that they have sort of passed blank sheets of legislation that the President fills in and when he signs them, he's signing an actual law just like any other. That's a metaphor, really, but it captures the actual idea. Pre-authorized bills, if you will, that he fills out and signs. So Presidential Orders are literally the same in force and application as any law passed the way they teach you in school. Exactly the same. Just the mechanism is murky.

And that "in secret" part... that's SCARY, isn't it? It was revealed about a year-and-a-half ago that the "homeland security" Pr
Category: Homework Help

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, sending the section that determines which states need extra attention about discrimination back to Congress to be re-written.

NEWS SUMMARY

International A3-15 An American hostage was set free in Beirut by his pro-Iranian kidnappers, hours after Israel and its Lebanese allies freed 15 Arab prisoners, the U.N. reported. Jesse Turner, a 44-year-old professor, had spent nearly five years in captivity. Page A1 The Palestinians going to peace talks were prepared to declare openly that they

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.

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

Will the Supreme Courts decision on Voting Rights Act help Democrats win Presidency again?

A split court with all the Right voting to strike down a key part of the Voting Right has already enraged Blacks across the country. This will lead to mobilization of the black community and quite possibly bring out even more folks to vote in 2016.

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. ... But they said lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington's approval for election changes. From NBC News: Under the law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nine mostly Southern states must get permission from the Justice Department or a special panel of ...

THE PRESIDENTS TRIAL; An Attack on What Has Been Characterized as the So What? Defense

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 -- Following are excerpts from the presentation today by Representative Stephen E. Buyer, Republican of Indiana, in the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton, as recorded by the Federal News Service, a private transcription agency: Now you will hear next week, perhaps from the Presidents lawyers, that the offenses - Excerpts from Rep Stephen E Buyers presentation in Senate impeachment trial of Pres Clinton; photo (L)

DOMA and the Voting Rights Act: The Supreme Court can strike ...

1 day ago ... At issue is the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines “spouse ... the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA but not the Voting Rights Act.

Why did conservatives act betrayed when Judget Roberts upheld the employer mandate?

I thought they wanted judges to interpret the law not activists who try and make it?

Answer: Judge Roberts did EXACTLY what his job was to do.

If he had done exactly what the conservatives wanted him to do, striking down that law, he would be "making the law". He would be doing what is referred to as "Judicial Activism".

What his majority opinion stated, is that IT IS A TAX. It is a tax, and if you want to vote for the people who will implement it, go right ahead. It is not the Supreme Court's job to stop you. There is nothing in the constitution that says a tax can't be added.

Don't expect the Supreme Court to do your heavy lifting for you, and get rid of every law you don't like. Part of the burden is on you, to understand what you candidates for the Executive and Legislative branches will do, and select accordingly.
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, but the map of regions used to determine which areas of the country ...

Shelby County v Holder: Will the Supreme Court Strike Down ...

If the Supreme Court were to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the ruling would encourage some states to adopt measures that would adversely ...

World Briefing

ASIA PAKISTAN: HURDLE TO BHUTTO APPEAL -- Supreme Court officials said Benazir Bhutto, a former Prime Minister convicted last month on corruption charges and sentenced to five years in prison, must surrender to authorities before the court will consider her appeal. Ms. Bhutto has remained outside the country, hoping that the court would allow her - Compiled by Jeanne Moore

How did the plessy v. ferguson decision differ from earlier interpertations of the equal protection clause?



Answer: The constraints of Yahoo! Answers permit only a brief answer to your good question.
BREIF BACKGROUND:
After the Civil War, during the era of Reconstruction, black Americans’ political rights were affirmed by the 13th, 14th (including what is known as the Equal Protection Clause) and 15th Amendments to the Constitution and numerous laws passed by Congress. Racial discrimination was attacked on a particularly broad front by the Civil Rights Act of 1875. This legislation made it a crime for an individual to deny "the full and equal enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color."
In 1883, the U.S.Supreme Court struck down the 1875 Act, ruling that the 14th Amendment did NOT give Congress authority to prevent discrimination by private individuals. Victims of racial discrimination were told to seek relief not from the Federal Government, but from the states. However, state governments were passing legislation that codified inequality between the races.

LOUISIANA AND THE SEPERATE CAR ACT:
In 1890, Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act. It required either separate passenger coaches or partitioned coaches to provide segregated accommodations for each race.

PLESSY v. FERGUSON:
Homer Plessy, the plaintiff in the case, was seven-eighths white and one-eighth black, and had the appearance of a white man. On June 7, 1892, he purchased a first-class ticket for a trip between New Orleans and Covington, LA., and took possession of a vacant seat in a white-only car. Under Louisiana's Separate Car Act (1890), he was arrested and imprisoned.
Plessy was brought to trial in a New Orleans court and convicted of violating the 1890 law. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Ironically, the judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts, who had previously regarded the Act to be unconstitutional as it applied to interstate travel. He reasoned that the Act as applied to trains which traveled through several states violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, in Plessy's case, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy's case.
By a 7-1 vote (with one Justice not participating), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Louisiana law and thus Homer Plessy's conviction for having violated it. Justice Henry Brown wrote the opinion for the majority of the Court.
Regarding the Equal Protection Clause of the14th Amendment, Justice Brown wrote, in pertinent part: "The object was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, BUT [emphasis added], in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other …"
Justice Brown concluded with these remarks: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the Act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. … The argument also assumes that … equal rights cannot be secured to the Negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals."

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state law that allowed equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races; and this was the law of the land until 1954.

For verification and important additional information, please see:
http://www.texasbar.com/civics/High%20School%20cases/plessy-v-ferguson.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v._ferguson_1896
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_plessy.html
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/plessy_v_ferguson
Category: Trivia

Should the Supreme Court Strike Down the 'Preclearance' Provision ...

Should the Supreme Court Strike Down the 'Preclearance' Provision of the ... Section 5, known as the "preclearance" provision, mandates that nine states and parts of ... No — Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever.

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that helped dismantle decades of discriminatory ...

Are you aware that the Senate is going to vote to take away your right to privacy tomorrow?

The FISA bill will also give immunity to Corporations that have broken the law and violated our rights.
The fourth ammendment is what they are taking away and yes Im against it as every American that believes in the rights granted to us by the constitution should be.

Answer: I have almost totally given up on the US government, especially the Senate and Presidency and often the Judiciary (which are all but lost causes) to act in the best interests of the American people. It doesn't matter who is elected, Democrat or Republican, they both answer to AIPAC and the CFR trilateral's who's goals are keeping the United States under the thumb of the Zionist world banking cartels. Unfortunately it seems the road out of this mess is looking less and less likely that it is going to be an easy or possibly even peaceful one. We will be pushed into the control grid of the NAU very shortly and then we can basically kiss all of our freedoms except those that are superficial goodbye, unless people have the guts to stand up to them.

mbadgjl, I like your answer. I think that is part of the problem. The government chooses to ignore the UNALIENABLE rights, and are more than happy to play a semantics game where they can allow people to willfully sell off their INALIENABLE rights and claim they are acting in the best interest of the people, when they clearly are not. It is a shift we have seen in our government that really started during the middle of 19th century towards more big government and less states rights which translated to wrest more control away from the local levels and consequently people were less free and less understanding of their rights spelled out by the founding fathers. By doing so they were able to manipulate the fact that most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. The fed can then gleefully manipulate the states and their citizens to simply surrender those rights away to the all power federal government, or in many instances simply striking them down via black robed tyrants who don't asnwer to the people. Once a government becomes corrupt and overreaches its authority, it can never be expected to voluntarily decrease on its own volition, which is exactly why the founders provided us with the 2nd ammendment. But even in that case, the loophole that was found and abused ,was the issue of states and INALIENABLE rights as opposed to UNALIENABLE rights. While the Supreme court recently ruled in favor of the second Ammendment, a ruling that seems to have cemented the original intent of protection from tyrannny for the people, all it really did was to slyly shift that UNALIENABLE right framed by the constitution in the Bill of Rights, to the realm of the already corrupted INALIENABLE rights protected by the states, which can be easily altered and given away, while allowing for states to set further regulations at their own disgression. When the North American Union comes, the constitution will be as George Bush put it "nothing more than a G.D. piece of paper" and then those INALIENABLE rights will mean NOTHING! Nothing is ever what it seems with the federal government. They truly carry and olive branch in one hand, and a sword in the other.
Category: Other - Politics & Government




DISCLAIMER:
The data displayed here is user-generated. We do not host any media files (video, audio or images) on our servers. We aggregate and link / embed publicly available content from other sites on the Internet. We are not responsible for the accuracy, authenticity, compliance, copyright, legality, decency, or any other aspect of the content of other sites referenced here. If you have any legal / copyright issues or want to submit a correction, please drop a comment below and we will look into it promptly.

PRIVACY POLICY:
We value your privacy! We do not sell, rent, loan, trade, or lease any personal information collected at our site, including visit patterns, demographic details, contact forms, download requests or email lists. We analyze the web-site logs to improve the value of the materials available on it. These web-site logs are *NOT* personally identifiable, and we make no attempt to link them with the individuals that actually browse the site.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

 
All images and videos displayed here are property of their respective owners.