@same
First, we have to get out of the notion that the original costitution without subsequent amendments is appropriate for the chaninging times. Secondly, this effort by the supreme court on an act that in 2006 was re ratified again by a vote of full majority in the Senate and 95% in the house is just a revisit for one reason only. The only change has been…we have had a black president with a 94% majority of votes among blacks. This is an intolerable situation in the Republican party who fails to consider the plights of minorities and at the same time expects their votes. Their only solution, is to make their votes irrelavant…
Any change to the “voting rights act” will Open the door to making more redistricting and make it more difficult for minorities to vote. Let’s go back to “taking tests” to vote, but only in minority neighborhoods. This act is an acknowlegdment of changing times to the original bill of rights, written during a time when slave’s as " property " was the law of the land.
Skelea now calls it an " entitlement" act…with the same negative connotation as all bigots have, whether it be bigotry vs the poor or minorities.
I will re read the the original institution without amendments and totally accept it’s veracity as I would the original teachings that denounced evolution. Times they are a changing and even the constitution and those who wrote it, seem to recognize it as a living changing document more then those who keep quoting it in original form.
Dag, you begin with a great argument, but then stoop to insinuations not supported by the case being heard by the court. Then you jump to the accusation that the republican party (and, by implication, all republicans) fails to consider the plights of minorities. And you make the implication that freeing Alabama from federal oversight of their election law changes is being persude to free them up to pass racist voting laws.
I’m not from Alabama, and never have been, but to use this case to cast allegations of racism on all those of us who routinely refernce the constitution, and to accuse us of not including equal rights amendments in our belief that the consitution applies to us all is just plain wrong. And, even worse, it’'s “baiting”. It’s creating conflict where none exisits just for the sake of creating conflict.
I consider myself a conservative. And I will fight just as hard for the rights and protection of any decent person regardless of color as I would for anyone else. I honestly don;t care what color someone is. I only care how decent they are. I refuse to be painted with the brush of racism because I’m conservative and quote the constitution.
@Same
I DONOT consider conservatives by any means to be intolerant. I just disagree politically with many of the tenants that most hold. IMO, that’s no big deal. It would be a boring and UN productive world if we did everything the same way. But, I failed in my post to make sure that Republican was with a capital R. The Republican party by it’s failure to totally denounce the voting influence efforts during the last election both as a group are all suspect to being call frauds in their pronounced adherences to the constitution if they don’t.
That you consider yourself a conservative tells me nothing about your party affiliation, just like me telling you I am a devout, wild eyed, hippy liberal doesn’t tell you I have little use for the Democratic party and being affiliated with it. I feel some of their stances as a group are just as fraudulent, if I could use that word. But, I just feel there is such a thing as guilt by association if we stand silent and say nothing if we belong to a political party that engages in such practices to win an election. In a democracy, what is more important then the right to vote ?
So, if conservatives belong to the Republican party and are the least bit embarrassed by their behavior in saying nothing about their state affilliate conduct, please, jump off the band wagon and join the ever growing band of independents. We need more conservative thinkers.
Btw, IMO, quoting the constitution must include the equal rights amendment. That’s the point I was trying to make.
I commend you for your insightful reference to how you personal align yourself with the original bill of rights.
But, this is a NATIONAL election and as such should be under the justification of the federal govt. with an outcome that has effects across state lines. The federal govt… IMO is needed to uphold section 5 of the voting rights act. Any election should then be held to the same standards as well.
You make a good argument. And you’ve successfully made your case that your reference to Republicans should not be construed to mean conservatives. The party subscribes to many points of view that I totally disagree with, mostly (domestically) involving personal freedoms, states’ rights, and government oversight. Militarily, I stood up and cheered when we couterattacked Al Quida in Afghanistan, but adamantly disagreed with our invasion of Iraq. I believe in an extremely strong military, but not for the purpose of ruling the world. Had we not had the might and the foritude to blockade Cuba in the early '60s, there’s a good chance we’d have had Soviet missiles in our backyards, and if we chop our might too low we’ll lack the resources to prevent wars…and hostile takeovers of helpless countries by dictators expanding their influence.
I consider myself conservative. But not Republican.
As regards the Alabama case, I’d want to see the briefs and hear the arguments. The federal government should not interfere in the rights of the states to make their own laws except where necessary to enforce compliance with federal laws statutorily mandating compliance with the constitution (including its amendments). There’s no question that the federal givernment needed to enforce civil rights laws in the '50s and '60. But of Alabama can demonstrate that it’s no longer necessary, the appeal to the supreme court is the correct path to take. We’ll see what happens.
I’m a moderate…I’m conservative on some things…and liberal on other issues. I don’t like the phrase Conservative or Liberal/Progressive. It paints a too narrow picture of someones beliefs.
I also don’t like the saying that conservatives are racists…or liberals are all on wellfare. Both statements are utterly untrue. Live down south for some time and you’ll find conservative and liberal bigots.
Why many people equate bigotry to Conservatives are mainly the self appointed conservative spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter (just to name a few). Maybe the conservatives should get better mouth pieces.
I don’t think you’ll ever be able to come up with a conservative definition that ALL conservatives agree with…Same with the Liberal definition. Down south in the bible belt…the definition of a Conservative is someone who’s pro-life (unborn only). They still believe in capital punishment…That’s the ONLY definition of conservatives for many people in this country. Here in the North the definition is mainly Fiscal conservative.
I think you’ll find MOST people in the US are moderates. Or a mung of Conservative views and Liberal views. I have conservative friends who call me Liberal…and Liberal friends who call me Conservative. Which I’m very happy with.
@same
When I talk to my closest friends who are conservative ( and it seems everyone of them are) we seem to have exactly, the same fundemental, core beliefs. That’s why we all get along. The only thing that gets in the way it seems, are labels. So we avoid them.
For example, my Democratic brother got upset when I said to him…" you know, if Romney were elected, it might not be such a bad thing. He is quite liberal and in the past and he did support healthcare for all in a very liberal State and has shown an ability to work with everyone and change his mind" Just because he wore the Republican label, my Democratic labeled brother just couldn’t see it and just because I am more liberal thinking he says, then my bro. thinks I should support a Democrat all the time.
I feel that many don’t get that " being a true liberal ( with a low case “l”) . means you consider everyone and everything"
Politics in today’s world of www and television propaganda is a on a par with the championship wrestling extravaganzas of the 80s. Isn’t it amazing that all those thousands of people who paid for admission or watched on television adamantly cheering for and supporting their “hero” are legal voters? I often tune in to the various political radio celebrities and hear the callers getting all fired up and wonder which wrestler was their “hero” and imagine Limbaugh, or Levine or Ed or Stephanie wearing spandex and knee high boots throwing someone over the ropes. Each of those latter day Lonesome Rhodes would just as easily have been propagandizing for the opposite side if the money trail had led there.
I have lived most of my life here in Mississippi where Jim Crow law was unquestioned until federal civil rights legislation was passed and then forced on state and local governments and even today the black community is politically, financially and culturally marginalized. My state senator is leading a struggle to get an education bill passed that will pull education funding from predominantly black local school districts to support private schools using the term “scholarships” with a wink and a nod to white parents. Until recently this town had 2 at large council members to totally overwhelm any efforts by the black community to make changes to their advantage and the most recent move to keep government in the hands of the “right” people several areas were annexed, all totally white. It will take smarter people than me to work this out but first the majority of white people must recognize that change is necessary and will come sooner or later, peacefully or otherwise.
Thanks for the links, Barky. I had actuallly read these articles both within the last 24 hours. As I suspected, the issue is more complicated than it first appears. The law unquestionably did great good, but it sounds like it’s implementation may have evolved to where it’s now preventing states from making needed changes.
I look at things, maybe a little too simply. There were definitely voting problems during the last election. Many, but not nearly enough, were succesfully mitigated as the burden of proof to change voting procedures was put on those who would make the change. Without this act, the burden of proof is on the invivudual which is not only a severe encumbrance but applies only to the municipality involved and whose adjudication is usually well after the fact, too late to make right, that persons voting rights.
After all, with out difinitive acts of congress, slavery, women’s suffrage and all minority rights would have waited another hundred years to make right. It took a hundred years just to make relavant these personal rights and pass them. Now, we need to go backwards ?
If a state or municipality needs to make a change, let them start now to apply to a central govt. for that needed change and with good reason. Don’t allow them to make changes, days or weeks before an election! This puts an undo burden on our right to practice our most precious right…that is, the right to VOTE. I would logically think you need a good reason if you want to restrict voting privileges instead of expand them.
So, while the original bill of rights eloquently states the intent of our constitution, it’s interpretation is often misused by those in power locally, yet who do not have the burden of proof. This makes it near impossible for a central govt, to protect these individual rights, even when stated in the constitution. Without this protection, the individual is left to fend or themselves. Maybe in the ideal world that would be fine, but we aren’t there and neither is the country as the voting lines in specifically designated places will attest.
" We hold these truths to be self evident;" what part of basic Human rights does the Polity not understand?.Government is not a game to make the priveledged more powerful or wealthy. Evidently poor frail Human Beings cant be trusted to be fair-Kevin
@Kevin
I can’t quite decider what your message is. Are you saying that ensuring voting rights to all is not a good thing because some can’t be trusted to make the right choices ? The great thing about America is that we are a melting pot of minorities. To forget that and take a step backwards in not supporting individual personal and political freedom is to take a step backwards in time.
@Dagosa, I said no such thing ,I was referring to the nuts that make our mostly superflous laws.Thats were my libertarian bent comes in-if its causing no harm to someone else,leave me alone,but I diverge from these politics outside of that(I’ve been helping people all my life and if God is willing will continue to do so).My wife is a Facebook addict and my daughter showed me a couple at the beach who were on welfare(late teens,early twenties) body piercings and tatoos galore and the lady was proud of becoming pregnant,you have to draw the line somewhere.
Yoda was wrong,at least try.(And I think Nietzche or whatever his name is full of it too)-Kevin
@Barkydog,it seems T&H was a step backwards for the working man(no wonder we used to have a strong middle class) while never receiving the benefits of a union or a living wage for that matter,I’m happy that some people prospered and got at least a silver parachute out of the largesse of organized labor,see these people running around about my age or younger with a nice retirement with no worries of unemployment(I live in a right to work state and can only shake my head as I watch the former UAWs and whatnot buy up land I cant afford and live comfortably(where was our parity?)
News flash Folks,“life isnt always fair” while my life is pretty good right now due to unemployment issues and the big “F” on my record things can could get pretty interesting for me in the immediate future.Dont even know if I can draw unemployment,“it is,what it is” but I’m not worried,some Folks are having a terrible time"so it goes"-Kevin
@kevin
A thousand pardons…my wife reminds me often I must work on my reading comp. At least as we speak, none of my children or grandchildren have any tats or piercings. I have enough skin imperfections already being old so it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to add to it on purpose…but to each his own. But I agree, welfare should not be a funding source.
I think a lot of those chicks on those staged TV shows were the Guys make a handsome living off gyping people look a little gross with all that body art and holes in their tongues,etc(why do people want to mutilate themselves like that?)-Kevin