Voting Rights Act ruling affects two Michigan...


Voting Rights Act section affects provision on states : Photo Gallery





VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES






VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES



VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES


VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES

Voting Rights Act section affects provision on states









VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The News ...






VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The News ...



VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The News ...


VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The News ...

Voting Rights Act section affects provision on states | The News









Supreme Court to Hear Alabama County's Challenge to Voting Rights ...






Supreme Court to Hear Alabama County's Challenge to Voting Rights ...



Supreme Court to Hear Alabama County's Challenge to Voting Rights ...


Supreme Court to Hear Alabama County's Challenge to Voting Rights ...

Supreme Court to Hear Alabama County's Challenge to Voting Rights









Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia









Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law | KPBS.






Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law | KPBS.



Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law | KPBS.


Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law | KPBS.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law | KPBS.









Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia









VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The Town ...






VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The Town ...



VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The Town ...


VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES | The Town ...

Voting Rights Act section affects provision on states | The Town









video-voting-rights-history-thumbWide.jpg






video-voting-rights-history-thumbWide.jpg



video-voting-rights-history-thumbWide.jpg


video-voting-rights-history-thumbWide.jpg

video-voting-rights-history-thumbWide.jpg









How the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Ruling Affects New York ...






How the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Ruling Affects New York ...



How the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Ruling Affects New York ...


How the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Ruling Affects New York ...

How the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Ruling Affects New York









Hot Topic: The Supreme Court Takes Up The Voting Rights Act






Hot Topic: The Supreme Court Takes Up The Voting Rights Act



Hot Topic: The Supreme Court Takes Up The Voting Rights Act


Hot Topic: The Supreme Court Takes Up The Voting Rights Act

Hot Topic: The Supreme Court Takes Up The Voting Rights Act









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 ...

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law









Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court - Bloomberg






Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court - Bloomberg



Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court - Bloomberg


Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court - Bloomberg

Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court - Bloomberg









Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5 - ProPublica






Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5 - ProPublica



Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5 - ProPublica


Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5 - ProPublica

Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5 - ProPublica









Supreme Court rejects key part of Voting Rights act, affecting ...






Supreme Court rejects key part of Voting Rights act, affecting ...



Supreme Court rejects key part of Voting Rights act, affecting ...


Supreme Court rejects key part of Voting Rights act, affecting ...

Supreme Court rejects key part of Voting Rights act, affecting









Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court | Latest ...






Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court | Latest ...



Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court | Latest ...


Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court | Latest ...

Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by Top U.S. Court | Latest









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









VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012






VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012



VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012


VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012

VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012









Occupy Wall Street is One Step Away from a Fourth Reich Gulag: Then Who Goes Next? (g1a2d0083c1)






Occupy Wall Street is One Step Away from a Fourth Reich Gulag: Then Who Goes Next? (g1a2d0083c1)



Occupy Wall Street is One Step Away from a Fourth Reich Gulag: Then Who Goes Next? (g1a2d0083c1)


Occupy Wall Street is One Step Away from a Fourth Reich Gulag: Then Who Goes Next? (g1a2d0083c1)

Occupy Wall Street is One Step Away from a Fourth Reich Gulag: Then Who Goes Next? (g1a2d0083c1)









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









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









Selective Memory 0420101457BW






Selective Memory 0420101457BW



Selective Memory 0420101457BW


Selective Memory 0420101457BW

Selective Memory 0420101457BW









VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES






VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES



VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES


VOTING RIGHTS ACT SECTION AFFECTS PROVISION ON STATES

WASHINGTON — The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson — with Martin Luther King Jr. standing near — in the wake of the violence and bloodshed that marked the 1950s and 1960s in the South.









Voting Rights Act ruling affects two Michigan...






Voting Rights Act ruling affects two Michigan...



Voting Rights Act ruling affects two Michigan...


Voting Rights Act ruling affects two Michigan...

The high court — in a 5-4 vote — declared unconstitutional a section of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that determines which states and localities must get Washington's approve for proposed elections. Attorney General Eric Holder leaves after ...









Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff between feds and ...






Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff between feds and ...



Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff between feds and ...


Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff between feds and ...

A landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act has set up a stand-off between Republican-led states and the Obama administration over controversial voting laws that until now had been stalled. The 5-4 ruling on ...









Advocates say US Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling could affect minorities






Advocates say US Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling could affect minorities



Advocates say US Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling could affect minorities


Advocates say US Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling could affect minorities

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a key portion of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that Congress used obsolete reasoning in continuing to force nine states, mainly in the South, to get federal approval for voting ...









Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling affects 5 Florida counties, including ...






Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling affects 5 Florida counties, including ...



Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling affects 5 Florida counties, including ...


Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling affects 5 Florida counties, including ...

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 justices said in 5 ...









Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by U.S. High Court and Affects Texas ...






Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by U.S. High Court and Affects Texas ...



Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by U.S. High Court and Affects Texas ...


Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by U.S. High Court and Affects Texas ...

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 ...









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

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the critical Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Supreme ... The Court says that the opinion "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in ...









Court Upends Voting Rights Act






Court Upends Voting Rights Act



Court Upends Voting Rights Act


Court Upends Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court nullified a core provision of the Voting Rights Act in an ideologically divided ruling that eroded a landmark of the civil-rights era and threw the issue into the lap of a gridlocked Congress. In a 5-4 decision, Chief ...









Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act






Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act



Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act


Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act

But, writing for the court's majority, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that America is not the country that it was a half century ago when the Voting Rights Act was passed to end a century of attempts by former slaveholding states to block ...









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 5-4 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. The ...









Supreme Court knocks out part of Voting Rights Act; Voter ID now the law in ...






Supreme Court knocks out part of Voting Rights Act; Voter ID now the law in ...



Supreme Court knocks out part of Voting Rights Act; Voter ID now the law in ...


Supreme Court knocks out part of Voting Rights Act; Voter ID now the law in ...

“The federal court that reviewed South Carolina's photo ID law also noted the “vital function” that the Voting Rights Act played in prompting the state to change how it will implement the statute in future elections so that it would no longer ...









Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened ...






Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened ...



Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened ...


Supreme Court strikes down Voting Rights Act formula that put heightened ...

Justice Kennedy, often the swing vote in divisive cases, expressed concern about putting states under a sort of federal “trusteeship.” The case hinged on the future of Section 5 of the landmark Voting Rights Act. That provision requires covered ...









Voting Rights Act ruling affects 2 Mich. townships






Voting Rights Act ruling affects 2 Mich. townships



Voting Rights Act ruling affects 2 Mich. townships


Voting Rights Act ruling affects 2 Mich. townships

The high court — in a 5-4 vote — declared unconstitutional a section of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that determines which states and localities must get Washington's approval for proposed elections. ... "Let's be clear, the Supreme Court ...









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

While the decision in the case Shelby County, Alabama V. Attorney General Eric Holder removes barriers for certain states, the ruling "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no ...









SCOTUS And The Voting Rights Act, Part 4: Today's 5-4 Ruling Explained






SCOTUS And The Voting Rights Act, Part 4: Today's 5-4 Ruling Explained



SCOTUS And The Voting Rights Act, Part 4: Today's 5-4 Ruling Explained


SCOTUS And The Voting Rights Act, Part 4: Today's 5-4 Ruling Explained

The 5-4 decision leaves in distinct limbo the historic 1965 law that opened the voting booth to millions of mostly African-Americans voters who had been shafted, even as it maintains its ruling "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial ...









4 Effects of Voting Rights Ruling on 2014 Midterms






4 Effects of Voting Rights Ruling on 2014 Midterms



4 Effects of Voting Rights Ruling on 2014 Midterms


4 Effects of Voting Rights Ruling on 2014 Midterms

On Tuesday, the high court ruled unconstitutional a key part, Section 4, of the Voting Rights Act. That provision detailed the formula used to decide which states must have pre-clearance from the federal government before making changes to voting laws ...





Voting Rights Act section affects provision on states : Videos





Judge Napolitano on Ruling of Supreme Court ...






Judge Napolitano on Ruling of Supreme Court ...



Judge Napolitano on Ruling of Supreme Court ...









... Court has struck down a key provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that ... Duration: 412 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:46:17 -0700









Voices of the New Generation: Keep the Voting ...






Voices of the New Generation: Keep the Voting ...



Voices of the New Generation: Keep the Voting ...









The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973--1973aa-6) is a landmark ... not implement any ... Duration: 162 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:29:48 -0800









Bill Maher's Surprising Take: 'Maybe The Voting ...






Bill Maher's Surprising Take: 'Maybe The Voting ...



Bill Maher's Surprising Take: 'Maybe The Voting ...









Bill Maher tonight took a surprising stand against the Voting Rights Act. He ... United States ... Duration: 207 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:01:31 -0800









Watch Attorney General Eric Holder's Remarks on ...






Watch Attorney General Eric Holder's Remarks on ...



Watch Attorney General Eric Holder's Remarks on ...









... provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court ... ... The Supreme Court ... Duration: 414 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:12:35 -0700









High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act - YouTube






High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act - YouTube



High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act - YouTube









High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act ... a provision of the landmark Voting Rights ... Duration: 18 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:52:14 -0700









Can Congress Design a New Voting Rights Act ...






Can Congress Design a New Voting Rights Act ...



Can Congress Design a New Voting Rights Act ...









The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote to strike down a provision of the Voting Rights Act ... Duration: 536 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:14:22 -0700









High Court Poised For A Month Of High -Stakes ...






High Court Poised For A Month Of High -Stakes ...



High Court Poised For A Month Of High -Stakes ...









Voting rights: The future of the Voting Rights Act, and continued federal oversight of elections ... Duration: 129 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 28 May 2013 18:08:29 -0700









US Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Key Civil ...






US Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Key Civil ...



US Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Key Civil ...









... U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... Duration: 166 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:15:03 -0700









Matheny on Supermajority, Supremacy Clause ...






Matheny on Supermajority, Supremacy Clause ...



Matheny on Supermajority, Supremacy Clause ...









Matheny on Supermajority, Supremacy Clause, States Rights (TNReport.com) ... he's ... Duration: 382 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 02 May 2013 11:58:24 -0700









Maddow Attacks Rand Paul Denying He Questioned ...






Maddow Attacks Rand Paul Denying He Questioned ...



Maddow Attacks Rand Paul Denying He Questioned ...









... in 2010 over whether he supported the Civil Rights Act? It was one of the f. ... Paul had a ... Duration: 397 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:31:45 -0700









Jim Willie Interview 3/26/13 What is happening in ...






Jim Willie Interview 3/26/13 What is happening in ...



Jim Willie Interview 3/26/13 What is happening in ...









He provided excellent information as always about what is really happening and how it will ... Duration: 2951 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:58:26 -0700









Texas State Rep Introduces Bill to STOP Obama's ...






Texas State Rep Introduces Bill to STOP Obama's ...



Texas State Rep Introduces Bill to STOP Obama's ...









... assault firearms and extended clips from affecting the state. ... The lawmaker added that ... Duration: 1678 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:16:34 -0800









Rate Payers Rights (WA) [Part 1] - YouTube






Rate Payers Rights (WA) [Part 1] - YouTube



Rate Payers Rights (WA) [Part 1] - YouTube









Authorised, T. van Lieshout, State Director, WestAusParty, Hilton, WA, 6163. There is no ... Duration: 1156 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:28:02 -0700









FOX NEWS: How will legalizing marijuana affect ...






FOX NEWS: How will legalizing marijuana affect ...



FOX NEWS: How will legalizing marijuana affect ...









Judge Rejects Bid To Block Washington State "Stoned Driving" Rules ... atrás - Washington ... Duration: 159 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:02:23 -0800









Robert Bork Supreme Court Nomination Process ...






Robert Bork Supreme Court Nomination Process ...



Robert Bork Supreme Court Nomination Process ...









A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's ... to the right of the Federal ... Duration: 12100 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:30:30 -0700









Dodd--Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer ...






Dodd--Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer ...



Dodd--Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer ...









The Dodd--Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was ... in the United States ... Duration: 6407 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 22 May 2013 05:33:45 -0700









"Adiós Democracy" by Old Fart Rants - YouTube






"Adiós Democracy" by Old Fart Rants - YouTube



"Adiós Democracy" by Old Fart Rants - YouTube









... voter suppression which could affect as many as 5 million voters. 41 state... ... 34 ... Duration: 476 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:29:44 -0700









State Lawmakers Say No to President Obama's ...






State Lawmakers Say No to President Obama's ...



State Lawmakers Say No to President Obama's ...









Another Missouri state legislator, Rep. ... "adversely affects a United States citizen's ... Duration: 128 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:01:53 -0800









Credit Card Reform After the Financial Crisis: Rio ...






Credit Card Reform After the Financial Crisis: Rio ...



Credit Card Reform After the Financial Crisis: Rio ...









The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 or Credit CARD Act ... Duration: 2927 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:43:00 -0800









Oakland County, MI Stops NDAA - YouTube






Oakland County, MI Stops NDAA - YouTube



Oakland County, MI Stops NDAA - YouTube









The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) typically funds our ... in opposition to the ... Duration: 185 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:39:16 -0700









India takes revenge from an innocent Pak prisoner ...






India takes revenge from an innocent Pak prisoner ...



India takes revenge from an innocent Pak prisoner ...









It does not look like India has provided proper security to Pakistani soldiers. ... These people ... Duration: 183 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 09 May 2013 09:44:34 -0700









NY Safe Act - Oops They Screwed Up! - YouTube






NY Safe Act - Oops They Screwed Up! - YouTube



NY Safe Act - Oops They Screwed Up! - YouTube









Critics say the NY SAFE Act was rushed through the legislature, paving the ... Retired law ... Duration: 128 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:32:47 -0800









Legal Cruelty (Part 1) - YouTube






Legal Cruelty (Part 1) - YouTube



Legal Cruelty (Part 1) - YouTube









Authorised, T. van Lieshout, State Director, WestAusParty, Hilton, WA, 6163. ... is no ... Duration: 2217 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:16:04 -0700









1,100 additional peacekeepers to Sudan: UN ...






1,100 additional peacekeepers to Sudan: UN ...



1,100 additional peacekeepers to Sudan: UN ...









In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is ... Supreme Court strikes down ... Duration: 100 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:47:37 -0700





Voting Rights Act section affects provision on states : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites

Is it a fact that the Marines ?

Are the only branch of the Military that can be called up by the President without a vote from Congress?I am settling a bet with my son.If i am wrong i have to do all the yard work for 3 months.That means shoveling snow,lots of snow...so please let me be right just this once.

Answer: Presently, the laws provide that the President may engage the armed forces of this nation in any conflict with the stipulation that he will provide his reasoning for doing so within 90 Days. As with Afghanistan and Iraq this occurred. Yes, President Bush started the wars there, in Iraq especially, however without the support of Congress and the Democrats this could not have continued for this long. Credit for these wars rests not solely upon the shoulders of The President, especially in the last 2 years of his administration.

This info on the war powers explains why, as many say now, the Constitution surely seems to be suspended when the Gov't. runs over the citizens as it has for 80 years. The 1973 War Powers Resolution was enacted to reduce the power of the President to committ U.S. Troops to a conflict. The next section explains briefly how the war power acts have functioned.

1973 War Powers Resolution:

USC 50 § 1541(c)
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

USC 50 § 1542
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."[1]

War Powers Act
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes."[2]

"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."[3]

"With the melting of the Cold war--the developing Detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions."[4]

However, in relating an overview of the history of this emergency rule, the Committee admitted that

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."[5]

President Woodrow Wilson, after the Allied victory of World War I, "relinquished his wartime authority and asked Congress to repeal the emergency statutes, enacted to fight more effectively the war. Only a food-control measure and the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act were retained. This procedure of terminating emergency powers when the particular emergency itself has, in fact, ended has not been consistently followed by his successors."[6]
Category: Military

Is Floridas voting law harmful to minorities. Please read more info below before responding?

The voting law reduces the number of early voting days and the one day that is best for minorities is eliminated.

Answer: Yes.


"The Legislature's recent changes to Florida's elections law were so massive and controversial, it would be ironic if the overhaul came tumbling down because of one slightly obscure overstep. Here's hoping that's the case.
The overstep, pointed out June 12 in a front-page article by The Ledger's Lloyd Dunkelberger, was the Legislature's decision to disallow early voting on the Sunday before an election that features state or federal races.

That tweak might not seem like much, against the backdrop of the numerous and damaging changes imposed by the new law — such as tougher restrictions on voter registration, a severe reduction of the early voting period, and limitations aimed at young and absentee voters.

Yet, the final-Sunday voting ban should be a red flag to the U.S. Department of Justice, which, under the federal Voting Rights Act and because of the state's history of racial discrimination, must review any changes to Florida election laws.

The Sunday ban — as well as other changes affecting early voting — appears to be aimed directly at discouraging Florida's black voters."
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has notified the panel currently reviewing Florida’s voting law that the federal agency is opposed to a provision that complicates the process by which voters may change their registered addresses on Election Day.

Earlier this month, the DOJ said it was interested in seeking a trial into the state’s new voting law. Officials filed papers with the three-judge
panel reviewing the law opposing provisions that reduce the number of early voting days and ban early voting on the Sunday before Election Day. Officials are also concerned with the law’s onerous restrictions on third-party voter registration.

Just yesterday, the DOJ announced it was also opposed to a change-of-address provision in the law.

The Associated Press reports:


The Justice Department on Tuesday notified a federal court in Washington, D.C., that it believes a change-of-address provision also is discriminatory.

It previously had informed the court it would be opposing a reduction in the number of early voting days and new restrictions on voter registration drives. The newly challenged provision requires voters to cast provisional ballots if they change their addresses from another county at the polls on Election Day.

Critics of Florida’s voting law have called it a concerted “voter suppression” effort aimed at hindering access to the polls for minorities, students and low-income voters during the 2012 election. Florida’s law is just one of a slew of efforts that could curb voter turnout and, experts warn, could greatly affect the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.

The law is currently being reviewed because five counties in Florida (Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough and Monroe) are protected under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires federal preclearance for any new elections laws impacting minorities.

The DOJ was originally supposed to investigate some of the more controversial aspects of the law. This past August, however, Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning withdrew some of the more controversial portions of the bill from review by the DOJ.
Category: Elections

Trace Indian-white affairs from the end of the civil war to the passage of the 1934 Wheeler-Howard act.?

Give me a neat answer please!

Answer: The Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or informally, the Indian New Deal, was a U.S. federal legislation which secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives.[1] These include a reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of common holdings of American Indians and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. Section 18 of the IRA conditions application of the IRA on a majority vote of the affected Indian nation or tribe within one year of the effective date of the act (25 U.S.C. 478). The IRA was perhaps the most significant initiative of John Collier Sr., Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945.

The act did not require tribes to adopt a constitution. However, if the tribe chose to do so, the constitution had to:

allow the tribal council to employ legal counsel;
prohibit the tribal council from engaging any land transitions without majority approval of the tribe; and,
authorize the tribal council to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments.
Evidently, some of these restrictions were eliminated by the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003.[2]

The act slowed the practice of assigning tribal lands to individual tribal members and reduced the loss, through the practice of checkerboard land sales to non-members within tribal areas, of native holdings. Owing to this Act and to other actions of federal courts and the government, over two million acres (8,000 km²) of land were returned to various tribes in the first 20 years after passage of the act.

In 1954, the United States Department of Interior began implementing the termination and relocation phases of the Act. Among other effects, termination resulted in the legal dismantling of 61 tribal nations within the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Reorganization_Act ------------------------------------------------------ After the American Civil War and Indian wars in the late 19th century, Native American boarding schools were establishd, which were often run primarily by or affiliated with Christian missionaries.[38] At this time American society thought that Indian children needed to be acculturated to the general society. The boarding school experience often proved traumatic to Native American children, who were forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity and denied the right to practice their native religions, and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their Native American identities[39] and adopt European-American culture. There were documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse occurring at these schools.[40][41]


[edit] American citizens
Native Americans often had a legally ambiguous status in the United States, being neither full citizens of the U.S. nor of a recognized foreign nation. Laws were applied unevenly. Murder of an American Indian, for example, would not be considered a capital crime until a precedent was set in 1825.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans. Prior to the passage of the act, nearly two-thirds of Native Americans were already U.S. citizens.[42] The earliest recorded date of Native Americans becoming U.S. citizens was in 1831 when the Mississippi Choctaw became citizens after the United States Legislature ratified the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Under article XIV of that treaty, any Choctaw who elected not to move to Native American Territory could become an American citizen when he registered and if he stayed on designated lands for five years after treaty ratification. Citizenship could also be obtained by:

1. Treaty Provision (as with the Mississippi Choctaw)
2. Allotment under the Act of February 8, 1887
3. Issuance of Patent in Fee Simple
4. Adopting Habits of Civilized Life
5. Minor Children
6. Citizenship by Birth
7. Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces
8. Marriage
9. Special Act of Congress.


“ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all noncitizen Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Native American to tribal or other property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
Category: History

I need help with this computer class question? ?

what is the communications decency act and what are the two flaws of the act?

Answer: The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.

The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.

There were two flaws according to the federal courts:
1. It was to broad. It didn't clearly define pornography.
2. It violated free speech.

As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

It was pushed by the religious right to try to protect children from pornography.
Category: Homework Help

Do you agree MADD Who Is Okay with Illegals with DUIs Staying on Americas Roads?

When Judicial Watch asked a MADD spokesperson if they would stand up against provisions in the bill that allow illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving to get amnesty, and therefore keep driving on America’s roads, that spokesperson simply responded that MADD “doesn’t get involved in immigration matters.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News that MADD’s refusal to fight against convicted drunk drivers here is ludicrous. “We know already that Obama is releasing criminal illegal aliens onto the streets,” Fitton said in an email. “This new amnesty will further harm the public safety. In many states, a misdemeanor results in a citizen losing the right to vote. Yet under this amnesty bill, a ‘misdemeanor’ won’t stop an illegal alien from getting legal status and citizenship.”

As Watchdogwire’s Marinka Peschmann detailed in an early June article, there are provisions in the Gang of Eight bill that allow drunk driver illegal aliens to get amnesty.

“On page 608 drunk drivers are welcome too if they have only been busted three times before the Gang of Eight’s bill is enacted,” Peschmann wrote, before citing the specific section of the bill text.

“‘(J) HABITUAL DRUNK DRIVERS.—An alien convicted of 3 or more offenses on separate dates, at least 1 of which occurred after the date of the enactment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, related to driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated is inadmissible.’’As Judicial Watch noted in its piece, an illegal alien in New Jersey this weekend was allegedly driving drunk and killed a man and injured his two sons with his car. “The illegal alien, Manuel Gutierrez Vazquez, did not have a valid driver’s license yet had been arrested a few weeks earlier for driving drunk in another state, according to a local news report,” Judicial Watch wrote, citing a piece from NJ.com.

A GOP senate aide told Breitbart News, too, that this provision has the potential to be even more deadly to Americans as more examples like this will likely continue happening. “One of the more astonishing features of this bill is that it provides citizenship (and immediate legal status) to illegal alien drunk drivers with criminal records – these are individuals who illegally entered the country, illegally operated motor vehicles, illegally drove that vehicle while intoxicated, and then illegally remained in the country hoping for passage of the Senate amnesty bill,” the aide said in an email. “This will almost certainly lead to avoidable loss of life.”http://atasteofcreole.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/madd-okay-with-illegals-with-duis-staying-on-americas-roads..Why do so many organizations shield and go to great measures to protect illegal aliens such as drunk drivers,sex offenders, gang members are all given full protection.If the most wanted man in Mexico was in a catholic church the church would refuse to contact law enforcement would offer him food,shelter,money and sanctuary in the church as long as he wants it.How come organizations hold illegal alien criminals in such high regard they will protect them with support and money ?

Answer: MADD didn't say anything about illegal aliens, it's not their issue. they don't know anything about immigration. they're clearly against drunk drivers in general, and nothing here changes that. As for the rest, a dui conviction doesn't normally stop any legal immigrant from coming to the US, so this only means that the illegals will be processed in a normal manner under US immigration law. multiple convictions could impact that. convictions for more serious arrests will affect it, as it does for anyone else being processed for immigrant status. there's nothing whatever in Immigration Reform or the Deferred Action program that protects sex offenders or gang members, that's complete nonsense. even people who hold green cards already are automatically set up for deporation for criminal convictions under current law. nothing under Immigration Reform will change that, not so far anyway.
Category: Immigration

What do you think of the Supreme courts decision?

When it comes to Section 5 of the Voting rights of Act of 1965.
Which clearly says that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice.

Now that it has been gutted will this lead to certain areas in the country, denying people (mostly minorities) the right to vote?
Now most conservatives will say that this isnt voter suppression or "were just modernizing the law and making sure real americans are voting"
But, when you say "real americans" are you referring to caucasians that speak english?
Or are you referring to all legal US citizens? (Including minorities).

Need I remind you that The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.) prohibits the states and their political subdivisions from imposing voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. A product of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the Voting Rights Act has proven to be an effective, but controversial, piece of legislation. The act was extended in 1970 and again in 1982, when its provisions were renewed for an additional twenty-five years.

In the early 1960s very few African Americans in the South were allowed to vote. Southern states used literacy tests and physical and economic coercion to prevent African Americans from registering to vote. The state legal system supported these practices, leaving African Americans and other minority groups with few options to challenge voting discrimination. Civil Rights leaders organized public protests and voter registration drives, but met intense resistance from local authorities.

A 1965 march to Selma, Alabama, by Dr. martin luther king jr. and other civil rights supporters to demand voting rights led to police violence and the murder of several marchers. The Selma violence galvanized voting rights supporters

in Congress. President lyndon b. johnson responded by introducing the Voting Rights Act, the toughest civil rights law in one hundred years. Congress enacted the measure five months later.

Congress based its authority to regulate voting practices on the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The passage of the act ended the traditional practice of allowing states to handle all matters concerning voting and elections. The Voting Rights Act is premised on the active participation of the U.S. Justice Department and the federal courts. Southern states challenged the legislation as a dangerous attack on States Rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 86 S. Ct. 803, 15 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1966), upheld the constitutionality of the act, despite the fact that the law was, in the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, "inventive."

The original act was directed at seven southern states—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—which had used poll taxes, literacy tests, and other devices to obstruct registration by African Americans.

Under the law, a federal court can appoint federal examiners, who are authorized to place qualified persons on the list of eligible voters. The act waived accumulated poll taxes and abolished literacy tests and similar devices in those areas to which the statute applied. It required that bilingual election materials be made available in areas where more than five percent of the citizens are members of a single-language minority.
But lets not forget that the voting rights act also required the seven states to obtain "preclearance" from the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes in the electoral system. The state has the burden of proving that the proposed changes do not have the purpose or effect of "denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." The Supreme Court has liberally construed this provision to require approval of even inconsequential alterations. As a result, relocation of polling sites, changes in ballot forms, reapportionment of election districts, municipal annexations, and revision of rules pertaining to the qualifications of candidates and the appointive or elective nature of the office fall within the ambit of federal supervision. If a modification of the election law, such as redistricting, has the purpose or effect of denying or curtailing the right to vote on the basis of race, it may be
Section 4...my bad.

Category: Elections

what was the voting rights act of 1965?

i atleast need a good link. i have this big research prject due and im totally lost

Answer: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1965_voting_rights_act.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAvoting65.htm
http://www.core-online.org/History/voting_rights.htm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/voting_rights_act.htm
http://www.renewthevra.org/resources/history.html

The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The 1965 Enactment

By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.

The Voting Rights Act had not included a provision prohibiting poll taxes, but had directed the Attorney General to challenge its use. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Between 1965 and 1969 the Supreme Court also issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices that required Section 5 review. As the Supreme Court put it in its 1966 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Act:

Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.
Category: Law & Ethics

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law ...

14 hours ago ... The court ruled section four of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. ... 1965 Voting Rights Act that establishes a formula to identify states that ... writes that the decision "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban ...

how did the Nazis persecute Jewish people before 1939?



Answer: Legally - by enacting and using 'The Nuremberg Laws' of which there were two:

Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor 1935

1. Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
2. Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.
Section 2
Sexual relations outside marriage between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood are forbidden.
Section 3
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens of German or kindred blood as domestic servants.
Section 4
1. Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national colors.
2. On the other hand they are permitted to display the Jewish colors. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.
Section 5
1. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.
2. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
3. A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.

The Reich Citizenship Act 1935

Article 2
1 The regulations in Article 1 are also valid for Reich subjects of mixed Jewish blood.
2 An individual of mixed Jewish blood is one who is descended from one or two grandparents who were racially full Jews, in so far as he or she does not count as a Jew according to Article 5, paragraph 2 One grandparent shall be considered as full-blooded if he or she belonged to the Jewish religious community.
Article 3
Only the Reich citizen, as bearer of full political rights, exercises the right to vote in political affairs or can hold public office. The Reich Minister of the Interior, or any agency empowered by him, can make exceptions during the transition period, with regard to occupation of public office. The affairs of religious organizations will not be affected.
Article 4
1. A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He has no right to vote in political affairs and he cannot occupy public office.
2. Jewish officials will retire as of December 31, 1935. If these officials served at the front in the world war, either for Germany or her allies, they will receive in full, until they reach the age limit, the pension to which they were entitled according to the salary they last received; they will, however, not advance in seniority. After reaching the age limit, their pensions will be calculated anew, according to the salary last received, on the basis of which their pension was computed.
3. The affairs of religious organizations will not be affected.
4. The conditions of service of teachers in Jewish public schools remain unchanged until new regulations for the Jewish school systems are issued.
Article 5
1. A Jew is anyone who is descended from at least three grandparents who are racially full Jews. Article 2, para. 2, second sentence will apply.
2. A Jew is also one who is descended from two full Jewish parents, if (a) he belonged to the Jewish religious community at the time this law was issued, or joined the community later, (b) he was married to a Jewish person, at the time the law was issued, or married one subsequently, (c) he is the offspring of a marriage with a Jew, in the sense of Section I, which was contracted after the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor became effective, (d) he is the offspring of an extramarital relationship with a Jew, according to Section I, and will be born out of wedlock after July 31, 1936.

Hope that helps :)
Category: History

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. ... Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 Public Law 91–285 ... not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of ... These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the ...

What was the Indian Reorganization Act?

Its something I am supposed to study this for a quiz, I read a few different pages on it, but I just cant seem to sum it up in a short-essay form...
Whats the best way to describe it in about 4-5 sentences?

Answer: The Indian Reorganization Act, 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or informally, the Indian New Deal, was a U.S. federal legislation which secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives.[1] These include a reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of common holdings of American Indians and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. Section 18 of the IRA conditions application of the IRA on a majority vote of the affected Indian nation or tribe within one year of the effective date of the act (25 U.S.C. 478). The IRA was perhaps the most significant initiative of John Collier Sr., Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945.

The act did not require tribes to adopt a constitution. However, if the tribe chose to do so, the constitution had to:

1. allow the tribal council to employ legal counsel;
2. prohibit the tribal council from engaging any land transitions without majority approval of the tribe; and,
3. authorize the tribal council to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments.

Category: History

Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act of 1965 | BlueNC

Community organizing is even more critical after the United States Supreme Court's decision to strike down a key provision from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 earlier today. Voting rights suffered an unnecessary setback with the ... Section 5 is a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires certain jurisdictions, identified in Section 4 of the Act, to get preclearance before implementing any changes affecting voting. In an opinion not consistent with decades of Supreme ...

SCOTUS And The Voting Rights Act, Part 4: Today's 5-4 Ruling ...

The Supreme Court threw out key elements of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, telling Congress to revise the critical formula by which one determines if local voting laws are illegal. scotus edifice. ... The ruling means that even as the court keeps in place the theoretically critical section of the law, Section 5, the section would seem to have little practical impact now unless Congress will pass a new provision making clear which states and localities it would actually cover.

Supreme Court strikes down key 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. ... That provision requires all or parts of 16 states, including virtually the entire Southern region of the United States, to get Justice Department approval before changing election districts, voting rules, and polling locations. Section 5 made headlines ...

what does the 14th amendment mean and how can it affect you as a student?

Amendment 14th

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
i know what the amendment is so please can anybody explain it to me what it means and it what can it affect a person?

Answer: Section 1, whatever state among the united states you are born in, you are as well naturalised to citizenship in that state, not only the united states. The states can not make any legislation to arbitrarily infringe upon the rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States nor will it violate or infringe upon the people's rights of life, liberty or property without the proper reason and proper process of law to do so, nor will the states dispose their people to suffer an unequal protection of these laws, meaning everyone has an equal protection to the rights to which this section entitles them.
Section 2. The number of representatives for the house of representatives will be determined for each state by the populace of this state, not counting Indians who are not taxed. However, should any male above the age of 21 be restricted the right to vote for any reason beyond rebellion or an act of crime, then the basis of the represenation will be reduced solely to those who were given the capacity to vote in that state. (Meaning they'll have much less representation, which would be more detrimental in that time, back when states having more or less power in the house actually meant something)
Section 3. No person can hold any elected office under the United States of America if they've commited any sort of felony, act of rebellion against the United States, or assisted the enemies of the United States, but this ineligibility can be removed on a case-by-case basis on a two-thirds majority vote of each house.
Section 4. The validity of the debt of the United States treasury will not be questioned, but nor will the United States nor any state among them pay any debt made in the assistance of rebellion against the united states, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of slaves. (Meaning they're not going to pay for the freed slaves nor give any money to those who act in rebellion against the United States)
Section 5. Congress can enforce what's written here.

Since you're a student, it doesn't really affect you, since you're not yet 21 years of age, and this amendment also does not yet provide women the right to vote, as well you are not yet eligible for any public office and have had no slaves to which you need to make a claim for their loss. The first section however, affects everyone, it guarantees you equal opportunity and protection of the law and protection of the rights of life, liberty and property when the government doesn't have a proper reason to violate it. So you will not be killed by the government without having been convicted of a crime that merits the penalty of death, your liberty will not be restricted until you are convicted of crimes where you have infringes on the liberties of others, and your property will not be taken from you unless the government feels it has a better purpose for it. While this isn't perfect, it's certainly extraordinary from any government before it.
Category: Other - Politics & Government

Indian Reorginization Act of 1934?

What was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934?

Answer: The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or informally, the Indian New Deal or the Indian Magna Charta, was a U.S. federal legislation which secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives. These include a reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of common holdings of American Indians and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. Section 18 of the IRA conditions application of the IRA on a majority vote of the affected Indian nation or tribe within one year of the effective date of the act (25 U.S.C. 478). The IRA was perhaps the most significant initiative of John Collier Sr., Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1933 - 1945.

The act did not require tribes to adopt a constitution. However, if the tribe chose to do so, the constitution had to:

1. allow the tribal council to employ legal counsel;
2. prohibit the tribal council from engaging any land transitions without majority approval of the tribe; and,
3. authorize the tribal council to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments.

Evidently, some of these restrictions were eliminated by the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003.

The act slowed the practice of assigning tribal lands to individual tribal members and reduced the loss, through the practice of checkerboard land sales to non-members within tribal areas, of native holdings. Owing to this Act and to other actions of federal courts and the government, over two million acres (8,000 km²) of land were returned to various tribes in the first 20 years after passage of the act.

In 1954, the United States Department of Interior began implementing the termination and relocation phases of the Act. Among other effects, termination resulted in the legal dismantling of 61 tribal nations within the United States.
Category: Law & Ethics

Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act | Reuters

7 hours ago ... Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act ... South, to get federal approval for voting rule changes affecting blacks and other minorities. ... what states and locales should be covered by the provision relating to ...

Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down By Supreme Court

14 hours ago ... The court did not rule on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance requirement itself, which requires those affected states to have ...

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 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 oversight. “In 1965, the .... The dissent relies on “secondgeneration barriers,” which are not impediments to the casting of ballots, but rather electoral arrangements that affect the weight of minority votes. That does not cure ...

Civil Rights Division Section 5 Resource Guide - Department of Justice

Coverage Under the Special Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures .... Well over 99 percent of the changes affecting voting are reviewed administratively ...

CNN's Joe Johns Pits 'Conservative' Opponents of Voting Rights Act ...

JOE JOHNS: Well Carol, I was inside for this decision and essentially what it says is there are two provisions of the Voting Rights Act which were in question, Section Four, Section Five. Section Four is a coverage provision, which states around the country are ... COSTELLO: And just to make it clear for our viewers, some of the states affected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, mostly Southern states, right? Including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and ...

SCOTUS Sticks it to Alaskans : The Mudflats

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has a central provision, Section 5, that requires some state and local governments, mostly in the South, and also in Alaska, to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before making ... Indeed, it was the Voting Rights Act that was at the heart of successful efforts to stop states attempting to cut back on early voting hours and instituting voter identification laws that would have dramatically affected minority voter turnout ...

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

12 hours ago ... Court Rules on Voting Rights Act: The Times's David Leonhardt talks about .... saying that the majority opinion had provided the reasons and had ... state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is ...

U.S. top court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act - Stabroek ...

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court today gutted a key portion of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that Congress used obsolete re. ... The court, split on ideological lines, did not go so far as to strike down the core Section 5 of the law, known as the preclearance provision, which requires certain states to get approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before making election-law changes. But the majority did invalidate Section ...

CIVICS HELP! i just need to double check my answers! please help!?

hey guys im trying to get some help on my civics. I have studied the section and the assignment. im just looking to double check my answers before I turn it in. Thanks to anybody who helps with sincere answers! and please no haters!



1.
Political parties hold large fund-raising events. The money raised at these events goes into the partys state treasury fund, and is used to maintain a states political headquarters.
(Points : 2)
True
False





2.
FECA stands for The Federal Election Campaign Act
(Points : 2)
True
False





3.
Through public financing, money is made available to candidates from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the U.S. Treasury.
(Points : 2)
True
False





4.
By checking a box on their federal income tax forms, Americans can contribute $3 of their taxes to the election fund. This only slightly raises the amount of tax a person pays.
(Points : 2)
True
False





5.
The U.S. Treasury distributes the funds money to the candidates. To be eligible to receive this money, a candidate trying to win a partys nomination for president must first raise at least $5,000 from private contributions in each of at least
(Points : 2)

15 states.


10 states.


25 states.


20 states.






6.
Minor-party candidates may qualify to receive public funds after the election if they win
(Points : 2)

at least 5 percent of the vote during the election.


at least 19 percent of the vote during the election.


at least 13 percent of the vote during the election.


at least 10 percent of the vote during the election.






7.
To receive public funds, however, candidates must agree to limit their spending in nomination campaigns.
(Points : 1)
True
False





8.
After winning the nomination of their party, presidential candidates who accept public financing cannot accept private contributions.
(Points : 2)
True
False





9.
All U.S. citizens become eligible to vote in national, state, and local elections at the age of
(Points : 2)

21.


19.


18.


20.






10.
Voting is the means through which citizens can most directly affect the actions of government
(Points : 2)
True
False





11.
Each _________ decides qualifications for registering to vote and voting in state elections.
(Points : 2)

Precinct


Township


County


State


City






12.
All states must follow the provisions about voting contained in their States Constitution.
(Points : 1)
True
False





13.
The U.S. Constitution forbids any state to deny a citizen the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or sex.
(Points : 2)
True
False





14.
Many states disqualify certain people from voting.
(Points : 1)
True
False





15.
Check all answers that answer the qyestion correctly:

Most states deny the right to vote to...
(Points : 5)

mentally incompetent persons


prison convicted of a serious crime


election-law violators


persons out of the country during elections


persons with established residence less than 6 months






16.
The primary election takes place first and is usually held in November.
(Points : 2)
True
False





17.
The primary election is the election in which voters actually choose their leaders.
(Points : 2)
True
False

Answer: Didn't see your answers so was unable to check them.
Category: Government

High Court Voids Key Part Of Voting Rights Act « CBS Charlotte

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with an up-to-date formula for deciding which states and localities still need federal monitoring. ... Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi. Going forward, the outcome alters the calculus of passing election-related legislation in the affected states and local jurisdictions. The threat of an ...

Supreme Court Shreds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act ...

13 hours ago ... Behind Russia's Ingenious Plan to Troll the United States ... The Court says that the opinion "in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on ... Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was originally instituted as a means of ...

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 prohibited what? 10 points... multiple choice?

a. tribes from governing their lands
b. native americans from reveiving Social Security
c. people from grazing their sheep
d. the government from furthering divinding Native American land

Answer: D.

The Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or informally, the Indian New Deal, was a U.S. federal legislation which secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives.[1] These include a reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of common holdings of American Indians and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. Section 18 of the IRA conditions application of the IRA on a majority vote of the affected Indian nation or tribe within one year of the effective date of the act (25 U.S.C. 478). The IRA was perhaps the most significant initiative of John Collier Sr., Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945.

The act did not require tribes to adopt a constitution. However, if the tribe chose to do so, the constitution had to:

1.allow the tribal council to employ legal counsel;
2.prohibit the tribal council from engaging any land transitions without majority approval of the tribe; and,
3.authorize the tribal council to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments.
Evidently, some of these restrictions were eliminated by the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003.[2]

The act slowed the practice of assigning tribal lands to individual tribal members and reduced the loss, through the practice of checkerboarding land sales to non-members within tribal areas, of native holdings. Owing to this Act and to other actions of federal courts and the government, over two million acres (8,000 km²) of land were returned to various tribes in the first 20 years after passage of the act.

In 1954, the United States Department of Interior began implementing the termination and relocation phases of the Act. Among other effects, termination resulted in the legal dismantling of 61 tribal nations within the United States.

This act was based upon the thought that tribes should be in existence for an indefinite period of time.[3]
Category: History

What was voting like back in the 60s? Were black people able to vote then?



Answer: The Fifteenth Amendment ratified in 1870 prohibited preventing former male slaves from voting, but women still were not allowed to vote until 1920. Blacks were still usually prevented from voting by intimidation or tests until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed.

"By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place."

"The Mississippi Civil Rights Workers Murders involved the 1964 slayings of three political activists during the American Civil Rights Movement.

The murders of James Chaney, a 21-year-old black man from Meridian, Mississippi; Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old white Jewish anthropology student from New York; and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old white Jewish CORE organizer and former social worker also from New York, symbolized the risks of participating in the Civil Rights Movement in the South during what became known as "Freedom Summer", dedicated to voter registration.

The national uproar caused by the disappearance of the civil rights workers led President Lyndon Johnson to force J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to investigate the case. Hoover's antipathy against civil rights groups caused him to resist until Johnson used indirect threats of political reprisals. During its investigation, the FBI also discovered the bodies of at least seven other Mississippi blacks, whose disappearances over the past several years had not attracted attention outside their local communities.

The disappearance of the three activists captured national attention for six weeks until their bodies were found. Johnson used the outrage over their deaths and his formidable political skills to bring about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[2] , signed July 2, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Local officials in Mississippi, however, were hardly sympathetic to the situation. Neshoba County Sheriff Lawrence A. Rainey said, "They're just hiding and trying to cause a lot of bad publicity for this part of the state". Mississippi governor Paul Johnson dismissed concern by stating that "they could be in Cuba".

Because Mississippi officials refused to prosecute the killers for murder (a state crime), the US Justice Department charged eighteen individuals under the 1870 US Force Act, with conspiring to deprive the three of their civil rights (by murder). The charges were lodged against Sheriff Lawrence Rainey, Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price and 16 other men. Cecil Price and Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Bowers
Category: Elections

What is the consequence for a local jurisdiction that violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

White candidates will be excluded from the ballot during the next election.

A Federal designee is appointed to oversee the election process in the jurisdiction that has violated the act.

The State Senator for that jurisdiction is suspended from voting on the Senate floor.

The President will call in the National Guard for the next election.

Answer: A federal designee is appointed to oversee the election process in the jurisdiction that has violated the act.~

President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.
Category: Law & Ethics

How did slavery affect politics in the 1850s?



Answer: ~Today, you are taught that slavery was a burning issue in the mid-nineteenth century. At the time, however, it was not - at least not to the extent that "history" books would have one believe.

Slavery was an issue during the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention. The issue was resolved by guaranteeing the right to own slave by constitutional fiat. The right is protected at Article I, sections 2 and 9, Article IV, section 2 and by Amendments IV, V, IX and X. The only way slavery could be abolished was by state law or by Constitutional Amendment.

Before 1861, no attempt was made to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment. There was insufficient support in the North for ratification of such and amendment and the southern states would not have had to even vote to defeat it. By 1837, the northern states (unless one considers Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and the District of Columbia to be northern) had individually abolished slavery by state law (and a careful reading of New Jersey's abolition legislation shows us that slavery remained legal even in states wherein it had been "abolished"). By constitutional mandate, slaves traveling in or through "free" states remained legal chattel (by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the slave's status was determined by his state of legal domicile, regardless of where he or she might wander). The Constitution required that escaped slaves be returned to their rightful owners (Art IV, sec 2) and the bruhaha over the "Fugitive Slave Act" was much ado about nothing since it simply put federal teeth into the constitutional mandate.

In March, 1861, the Republican dominated northern majority in Congress passed the Corwin Amendment. If ratified, Corwin would have become Amendment XIII and would have prohibited any future amendment to abolish slavery. The southern states seceded rather than to stick around and ratify Corwin. Anyone who believes the southern states seceded to protect the right to own slaves either knows nothing of US history or the US Constitution, or is simply a fool. Why would a state secede to get or keep that which was already guaranteed? Why secede rather than to stick around and ratify Corwin, which would have protected the right into perpetuity? The icing on the cake came in 1864. An attempt was made to introduce a constitutional amendment for abolition in Congress. With the CSA states absent (they no longer belonged to the federal confederacy and had no vote in any case), Congress was unable to muster the votes to pass the act, let alone submit it to the ratification process.

The war did not end slavery. It could not. Regardless of the outcome of the war, the constitution would survive intact. Slavery was abolished after the war by the coerced ratification of Amendment XIII. Ah, what of the Emancipation Proclamation, you ask? The EP was illegal and unconstitutional (violative of the previously mentioned provisions as well as Lincoln's oath of office). Lincoln acknowledged throughout his campaign and in his First Inaugural Address that he had not the power to end slavery (nor the desire, at least where it existed). In any case, the EP was redundant. Congress had already purported to do the same thing by the equally illegal and unconstitutional Confiscation Acts, passed over Lincoln's reluctant signature months earlier.

The EP and the Acts were not humanitarian or moral gestures. They were, and were intended as, weapons of war. The goal was not to free the slaves (slaves remained in legal bondage in all regions not specifically mentioned in the act - including Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and large tracts of Virginia and Louisiana; when West Virginia was illegally and unconstitutionally admitted into the union, it was admitted as a slave state). Imagine the turmoil and havoc that would ensue if several million angry, destitute, penniless, uneducated people with no means of support and no marketable job skills were loosed on southern society. Sens Trumbull and Sumner surely did (and their words on the subject more than any other explain the real purpose intended by the Acts and the EP). It was hoped that southern troops would desert in large numbers to hurry home to protect their families, homes and property from marauding bands of freed slaves. Since a slave owner could retain his human chattel (under the terms of the Acts and the EP) simply by renouncing the CSA and swearing allegiance to the USA, it was hoped that the officer corps would abandon the cause in order to retain the slaves which represented a large part of their fortunes and the very foundation of their livelihoods. Since interest in the war was waning in the north and enlistments were down and desertions were up, the freed slaves opened up a whole new source of cannon fodder (both by enlistment and by conscription). After the war, the underlying reasons for the EP and the Acts remained. Ratification of Amendment XIII was coerced from the southern states during the "readmission" process (if it was illegal to secede, how could they be "readmitted" and why was it necessary? Suffice it to say that the right of secession was implicit in the constitution and is the very core principle espoused in the Declaration of Independence, but that is another harangue). Amendment XIII so destroyed the southern economy, so bankrupted the southern aristocracy and so erased the southern social fabric and way of life that it insured that the south would not soon rise again.

The Dred Scott case was correctly decided by the Tanney Court and the Missouri Compromise was indeed unconstitutional. The dicta in the decision is unfortunate, but the holding rests on solid constitutional foundation. As noted, the Fugitive Slave Act simply legislated that which the Constitution mandated. Abolitionists constituted a small minority, albeit a vocal one. The crux of the dissension between regions of the Federal Confederation was economic. Remember, in the 1850's, most people still realized that the central government was a federal government, not a national one, and that the states were independent nation-states that had confederated into an alliance but had not forged a single nation and the members had neither surrendered their sovereign autonomy (other than as to those limited and expressly delineated areas set forth in the constitution) nor the right to leave the confederation. The war changed all that of course and the national government that the Founding Fathers had tried so hard to avoid and prevent came into being when the USA war of aggression, conquest and annexation caused the governments of the people, by the people, for the people of the CSA to perish from the earth.

The north dominated all aspects of the federal government, as the election of 1860 so plainly proved. The south had lost any meaningful voice in the alliance. Northern industrialists and bankers had insured that the south could not industrialize or diversify its economy (the southern goods were needed in the northern factories). The south paid 75% of federal taxes, but 75% of federal spending occurred in the north. Tariff laws, passed by the northern dominated Congress, all but closed foreign markets to southern goods and allowed northern mercantile interests to set rock bottom prices on those goods. By denying self-determination in the territories upon admission and the grant of statehood, the northern interests could guarantee their continued stranglehold on federal legislation and could even further mute the already unheard southern voice in Washington.

Will you find this in your history text? Probably not. "History" after all, is the myths and legends written by the victors. However, if one reads a wide range of period sources, such and newspapers, editorials, magazine articles, books, and most significantly, congressional and legislative debates and political speeches, the "truth" begins to emerge. Read the abolitionists. They were a tiny segment of the entire puzzle but, like today's abortion and capital punishment politicos, they did manage to get elected on single issue platforms. More importantly, read the words of the mainstream pundits of the day - including those of Lincoln himself. (It may surprise you to discover that Robert E Lee condemned slavery more than Lincoln did.)

Obviously, you are not going to get a complete or accurate answer on this site. If you are really interested, you've got some reading to do.
Category: History

Supreme Court voids key part of voting law, sets up standoff ...

13 hours ago... struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act has set up a stand-off between ... addressed a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and ... the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional.

Required Reading; The Right to Vote

Vilma S. Martinez, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, testifying at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution about the Voting Rights Act. Jan. 27, 1982: Hispanics have had the protections of the Voting Rights Act for only seven years - a short time in which to

CAMPAIGN FINANCE; Excerpts From Ruling on the Campaign Finance Law

Following are excerpts from the ruling by a three-judge federal panel on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which limits political campaign donations. The full text is online at nytimes.com/washington. Introduction With one exception, the court also finds the disclosure provisions relating to electioneering communications - Excerpts from ruling by three-judge federal panel on Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which limits political campaign contributions (L)




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.