quote:Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Can you tell me this:
In doing research on the VRA Jesse Jackson Sr. is opposed to attempting to make it PERMANENT because he fears that this will bring forth a review by the US Supreme Court and a ruling that it is "Unconstitutional".
What about the VRA is at risk for being viewed so?
I recently posted this in response to a related questiion from MBM:
Jesse is the only national leader who, to my knowledge, has championed the VRA. He spoke about it at the Essence Music Festival and is sponsoring a march in Atlanta on 7/6.---MBM
Your right. His voice is recent.
My dissatisfaction lies in the fact that he is asking for signatures to a petition to extend the VRA, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY.
Temporary protection on the basis of 'race and color' is less than I want, and less they we deserve.
As follow up in the same thread, I later posted this.
Apparently there is not to be any defense/support for holding up the position of the petitioners on VRA Extension. I will expand my reasons for dissatisfaction, anyway, for the 'greater good.' Apparently there is not to be any defense/support for holding up the position of the petitioners on VRA Extension. I will expand my reasons for dissatisfaction, anyway, for the 'greater good.'
The rationale of the petitioners offered to explain, if not to justify, pursuit of temporary protection by the VRA.
'Although some people question whether the Voting Rights Act should be made permanent or should apply uniformly throughout the nation, civil rights lawyer Ted Stephens, Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, indicates that such efforts, no matter how well-meaning, constitute a "trap" that may render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutionally unenforceable.'
Where is the trap here? Hoping of course the 'unconstitutionally unenforceable' is unintended.
There are two issues mentioned. The first is permanence. The second is uniform application across the nation.
Such efforts says, Ted Stevens, 'constitute a trap' on the basis of constitutionality.
Application nationwide, and/or permanence approach unconstitutionality. These precepts are outside of the intended scope of the constitution.
Is this what he is saying?
The constitution is a construction of the rule-of-law that is applicable not only nationwide, but wherever the flag flies.
Please tell us that is true.
Mr. Stevens goes on to say:
'Race-conscious remedies for racial discrimination must be narrowly tailored to address a legitimate governmental interest. Thus, provisions of the act probably cannot be applied indefinitely, or to regions of the country with no comparable history of race discrimination.'
There is specificity.
Section 4(a) of the VRA, which is the subject of discussion here, is a 'race-conscious solution, AND it is specific in that it directly addresses 'race and color'.
Further...that terminology is the terminology used in 15th Amendment to the Constitution.
Additionally, the law (VRA) is specific to protection of the 'right to vote'.
This also is the cited intent of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.
And...Section 2 of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact legislation to enforce the amendment.
Clearly, drafters of the amendment anticipated there would be difficulty in getting the States, and citizens of those States to obey the 'rule' of the amendment.
Should one wonder why such 'clear vision' was held by the drafters, you need to look at certain facts of historical behavior of these entities.
1. The 'right to vote' is not, specifically, conferred on anyone by the Constitution of the United States.
2. The 'right to vote' is inherent to citizenship.
3. Citizenship in any, and every, State is inherent in, and coincident with, the citizenship of the United States.
Citizenship was originally automatic with residency. It was implicit. It was assumed.
But that didn't apply to Africans in America. It required the 14th Amendment.
Some States said 'Okay'. Many States said, 'No. It's a 10th Amendment issue.'
Thus the 15th Amendment intended to 'protect the right to vote'. It DID NOT granted, or otherwise imbue, citizens with the right.
Congress did not see fit, could not be persuaded, or simply refused to create a mechanism to enforce the 15th Amendment even though fully, and specifically, authorized to do so until forced by the Civil Rights Movement in 1965.
But STILL hedged the issue. THE PROTECTION WAS MADE TEMPORARY IN THE LAW; THE MECHANISM FOR ENFORCEMENT.
EVEN THOUGH THE PROTECTION WAS PERMANENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
So...What, in God's name is Ted Stevens talking about with 'unconstitutionally unenforceable'???
Mr. Stevens excerpted rationale concludes with:
'The most likely permanent solution would be a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.'
Do I hear 'permanence'??
Didn't this man just finish telling us 'permanence' was a 'trap'?
The 13th didn't do it.
The 14th didn't do it.
The 15th didn't do it until the VRA.
And.. he wants to ask for permanence in a new amendment.
And... not for protection of the 'right to vote', BUT a GUARANTEE.
Hell! The 15th GUARANTEES PROTECTION. AND IT'S PERMANENT!!!
THIS MAN IS MY LAWYER???
Do you know somebody.
ANYBODY WE CAN CALL???
I/We are supposed to BLINDLY accept this reasoning??
I wondering how this dude got out of school.
Is he a member of any 'bar?'
I don't see anything at risk by demanding that Section 4(a) be made permanent.