Skip to main content

The following is the 'whereas' section of the Voting Rights Act petition by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

PETITION TO SUPPORT REAUTHORIZATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

Whereas, 1965 Voting Rights Act is one of the nation's most important civil and human rights victories leading to political empowerment and voter enfranchisement;

Whereas, key provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire in August 2007 unless Congress acts to reauthorize them;

Whereas, efforts to make the provisions of the Act "permanent" or "nationwide" will make it vulnerable to challenge by those who want to dilute or eliminate the Voting Rights Act.


I can't see why any petition would include reasons for NOT doing something.

There is a name I am sorely tempted to use.

I will settle for The DeGruy-Leary Effect.

What do you think?

PEACE

Jim Chester
African Americans for African America http://iaanh2.org African American Pledge of Unity We stand, Together, after left alone in a land we never knew. We Bind ourselves, Together, with the blood and will of Those who have gone before. From the Bodies of our Ancestors thrown away, from the Pieces of Ourselves left to perish, We rise as One, a New Body in a New Land, a New People in a New Nation. Of Common Mind, Body, and Spirit, By Declaration of our Amalgamated Individual and Personal Authorities, We Are African America. © James Wesley Chester 2004; 2008 You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
The following is the 'whereas' section of the Voting Rights Act petition by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

PETITION TO SUPPORT REAUTHORIZATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

Whereas, 1965 Voting Rights Act is one of the nation's most important civil and human rights victories leading to political empowerment and voter enfranchisement;

Whereas, key provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire in August 2007 unless Congress acts to reauthorize them;

Whereas, efforts to make the provisions of the Act "permanent" or "nationwide" will make it vulnerable to challenge by those who want to dilute or eliminate the Voting Rights Act.


I can't see why any petition would include reasons for NOT doing something.

There is a name I am sorely tempted to use.

I will settle for The DeGruy-Leary Effect.

What do you think?

P.S. Here's the link: http://advocacy.rainbowpush.org/

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

Whereas, efforts to make the provisions of the Act "permanent" or "nationwide" will make it vulnerable to challenge by those who want to dilute or eliminate the Voting Rights Act.


This doesn't make sense. Why would PUSH want to support making the act vulnerable? Can you offer some insight about the permanent and nationwide aspects of the bill? Those are bad things?

Also - why not post the entire resolution? Do you disagree with their objectives?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

Whereas, efforts to make the provisions of the Act "permanent" or "nationwide" will make it vulnerable to challenge by those who want to dilute or eliminate the Voting Rights Act.


This doesn't make sense. Why would PUSH want to support making the act vulnerable? Can you offer some insight about the permanent and nationwide aspects of the bill? Those are bad things?

Also - why not post the entire resolution? Do you disagree with their objectives?


Exactly!!!!

Why would they do that?

I'm not sure we are having the same take.

I understand the 'vulnerability' to be in making the law permanent. That is what I challenge/question.

First:

I wholeheartedly agree with the objective. I have an issue with its legitimacy in that there is no provision for 'reautnorization' in 2007 in the law.

None.

So..why tell/mislead the people that there is?

Second:

Their rationale is that making the law permanent, opens the law to 'constitutional challenge.' Or the likelihood/threat of challenge.

The theory is that permanence for protection on the basis of 'race and color' will provoke (my word) challenge.

As you might imagine, this is less than I would expect for leaders who have 'fought for that protection for 40 years.'

I am quick to be suspect of this tact. It sounds like 'begging.'

You have to remember that the 15th is ONLY about PROTECTION.

The part of the law that PROTECTS US is Section 4(a). The language of that section states 'to assure protection on the basis of 'race and color.'

Asking for permanence will not automatically open a vulnerability to constitutional challenge.

This vulnerability has not been a demonstrated threat for 18-year olds. Nor has it been a demonstrated threat for gender.

BOTH have no time limit.

The absence of a specified limit constitutes permanence.

Interesting how law works.

The section of the law dealing with 'race and color' is the ONLY section with a time limit.

The section of the law dealing with 'race and color' is the ONLY section being terminated.

I was appalled when I read the proposed petition by Rainbow/PUSH.

It doesn't even include Section 4(a) in the list of grievances to be corrected.

I am not looking for an argument with Rainbow/PUSH. I don't like the idea of 'arguing among ourselves.'

I do think an alternative needs to be made available. And I recognize there is the responsibility of getting the signed petitions to targeted people.

I am toying, and I emphasize 'toying' with the idea of putting up an alternative on my website.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

Whereas, efforts to make the provisions of the Act "permanent" or "nationwide" will make it vulnerable to challenge by those who want to dilute or eliminate the Voting Rights Act.


This doesn't make sense. Why would PUSH want to support making the act vulnerable? Can you offer some insight about the permanent and nationwide aspects of the bill? Those are bad things?

Also - why not post the entire resolution? Do you disagree with their objectives?


Exactly!!!!

Why would they do that?

I'm not sure we are having the same take.

Here is the entire petition as it appears on the rainbow/PUSH site:
__________________________________________________
PETITION TO SUPPORT REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

Whereas, 1965 Voting Rights Act is one of the nation's most important civil and human rights victories leading to political empowerment and voter enfranchisement;

Whereas, key provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire in August 2007 unless Congress acts to reauthorize them;

Whereas, efforts to make the provisions of the Act "permanent" or "nationwide" will make it vulnerable to challenge by those who want to dilute or eliminate the Voting Rights Act.

I demand that President Bush and the Congress declare their public support for REAUTHORIZING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT and its enforcement provisions to make America a more perfect union;

I support the RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION and allied organizations joining in a COALITION OF CONSCIENCE to March and Rally in Atlanta on August 6th, 2005 to commemorate the 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND MOBILIZE TO WIN ITS EXTENSION IN 2007.

I DECLARE THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS, AND DEMAND THAT EVERY VOTE BE COUNTED. Let this be the season of a new Pro-Democracy Movement in America.
___________________________________________


I understand the 'vulnerability' to be in making the law permanent. That is what I challenge/question.

First:

I wholeheartedly agree with the objective. I have an issue with its legitimacy in that there is no provision for 'reautnorization' in 2007 in the law.

None.

So..why tell/mislead the people that there is?

Second:

Their rationale is that making the law permanent, opens the law to 'constitutional challenge.' Or the likelihood/threat of challenge.

The theory is that permanence for protection on the basis of 'race and color' will provoke (my word) challenge.

As you might imagine, this is less than I would expect for leaders who have 'fought for that protection for 40 years.'

I am quick to be suspect of this tact. It sounds like 'begging.'

You have to remember that the 15th is ONLY about PROTECTION.

The part of the law that PROTECTS US is Section 4(a). The language of that section states 'to assure protection on the basis of 'race and color.'

Asking for permanence will not automatically open a vulnerability to constitutional challenge.

This vulnerability has not been a demonstrated threat for 18-year olds. Nor has it been a demonstrated threat for gender.

BOTH have no time limit.

The absence of a specified limit constitutes permanence.

Interesting how law works.

The section of the law dealing with 'race and color' is the ONLY section with a time limit.

The section of the law dealing with 'race and color' is the ONLY section being terminated.

I was appalled when I read the proposed petition by Rainbow/PUSH.

It doesn't even include Section 4(a) in the list of grievances to be corrected.

I am not looking for an argument with Rainbow/PUSH. I don't like the idea of 'arguing among ourselves.'

I do think an alternative needs to be made available. And I recognize there is the responsibility of getting the signed petitions to targeted people.

I am toying, and I emphasize 'toying' with the idea of putting up an alternative on my website.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×