The Instigator
Lucas.Aho
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mcalcara
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Supreme Court Rightly Decided That Section 4 of the VRA Violated the Constitution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,302 times Debate No: 45191
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Lucas.Aho

Con

This first round will be stating the guide lines of the debate and explaining the debate. The pro position must prove that the Supreme Court did in fact rightly decide the Sec 4 of the VRA violated the Constitution.
As con, I must argue that this decision was not right.
The second round will be the main arguments by each sides. Third round is rebuttal and fourth will be the summaries. Good luck
mcalcara

Pro

I accept the terms and conditions of this debate. Thank you, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Lucas.Aho

Con

"The sad irony of today"s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective, The Court appears to believe that the VRA"s success in elimination the specific devices extant in 1965 means preclearance is no longer needed," says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upon the decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA. Like Ginsburg, I stand in firm disbelief of the resolved which states- The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.
According to Webster"s Dictionary
Rightly- in a way that is proper or appropriate or with certainty
Violate- To do something that is not allowed by (a law, rule, ect.), to take away, interfere with, or ignore (something, such as a person"s right"s or privacy) in an unfair or illegal way.
My opponent has taken the pro position in this debate and I believe this opinion to be invalid due to my three contentions; 1. There was no certainty in the judges" decision 2. The racism prevented by Section 4 is still present 3. Multiple other amendments and laws are in favor of Section 4 of the VRA.
My first contention states that there was no certainty in the judges" decision, proving the resolved wrong as this goes against the definition of rightly. According to Huffington Post the Shelby County vs. Holder case ended with a 5-4 ruling against Section 4. This in itself states that the Supreme Court was not certain of their decision, with only a 10% difference in votes tearing down the Act. Not only were more than 44% of the Justices against this ruling, but multiple of them spoke out. Reasons pertaining to the influence of racism and the VRA"s success were defended by the 44%, reasons for which I remain against the resolved.
My second contention states that the racism prevented by Section 4 is still present. To use another quote by Ginsburg, "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." In the past, minorities have been rendered unable to vote due to circumstances Section 4 of the VRA prevented. An example of this would be the Florida recount during the 2000 Al Gore Bush election. According to New York Times, "Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts." A similar pattern to this was found in other minority precincts and many believe this changed the entire election. With the Supreme Court throwing away this umbrella, I believe that these patterns will become more prominent and common with nothing keeping Congress in control of these instances. My third contention states that multiple other amendments and laws are in favor of Section 4 of the VRA. One of these would be Amendment 14, which is based on equal protection. Section 1 of Amendment 14 states "No states shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This prevents the states specified by Section 4 from creating tests or devices reducing or taking away a citizen"s right to vote. Not only Amendment 14 but 15 protects a citizen"s privileges stating, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Also, Section 12 of the VRA focuses entirely on defending the rest of the Act. Section 12 states "Whoever ["] interferes with any right secured by section 2,3,4,5,7,10, or 11 (a) or (b) shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." This entirely prevents the Supreme Courts legal ability to break down Section 4, as by their own country"s laws, the 55% that voted against this law will spend 5 years in prison.
I have come to the conclusion that resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution to be false, due to our three contentions.
mcalcara

Pro

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting." the other way that it could happen is through the voting rights act of 1965. Because I believe his words, I stand in affirmation in todays resolution of Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution. I support my stance with two main contentions.
1. Section 4 of the voting rights act violates the constitution.
2. Section 4 decreases federalism.

My first point states that section four of the voting rights act of 1965 violates the American Constitution. The voting rights act violates the 10th, 14th and 15th amendments to the American Constitution. The tenth amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This amendment identifies the area of power may be exercised by the States. All of those powers the Constitution does not grant to the National Government, and at the same time does not forbid to the States, belong to each of the States, or to the people of each State. The 14th amendment says 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 four of the voting rights act violates this by abridging the liberty of people, mainly other races, that although naturalized in the US. The 15th amendment states The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This gives the people of another race the ability to vote that section 4 is abridging. same thing goes with the 24th amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. The 26th amendment is right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. All of these amendments are being violated by Section 4 of the voting rights act.

My second point is that section 4 promotes centralism. Federalism as described by the free dictionary as the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units. The State government shares power with the national government. If not, then we would have centralism, a way of organizing a political system in which a single authority has power and control over the entire system. If the state doesn"t have power, then the national government has all the power being us havin a centralist government or communist government, a way of organizing a society in which the government owns everything and there is no privately owned property. Similar to centralism, the central government has all the power. If the state doesn"t share power with the national level, then there aren"t any checks and balances. If the government gets completely overthrown by rioters, then we have anarchy, a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws. Section 4 of the voting rights act denies the state power, leaning more toward centralism, communism capitalism, and God forbid anarchy over federalism, the government we like.

The Constitution is the foundation of America. If something goes against the Constitution, it is "un-American". A vote in affirmation will ensure that the VRA is legal and Constitutional.
Debate Round No. 2
Lucas.Aho

Con

Lucas.Aho forfeited this round.
mcalcara

Pro

mcalcara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Lucas.Aho

Con

I would like to start by asking any voters to simply vote on oringinal plan and rebuttle, as we will not have a round for summaries.
Now, my opponents first cotention states that Sec 4 of the VRA violates amenments 10, 14, and 15. First of all, Amendment 10 does not apply to this debate, as this amendment states that only powers not delegated to Congress are delegated to the people, and the reverse of this would also be true, being that powers delegated to Congress are not delegated to the people. But, by the 14th and 15th amendments, Congress is given power over states in terms of voting. Now, to explain why amendments 14 and 15 do not violate the constitution, Section 4 of the VRA makes it so that States must get preclearance from Congress before enacting any test or device pertaining to voting. The two previously stated amendments both back this up.
My opponents second contention states that Section 4 promotes centralism and demotes federalism. I feel as though the collapse of our government due to riots is highly unlikely to result from the VRA. Also, I feel as though the term "communism" has been used improperly. According to Websters dictionary, communism is defined as a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property. Privatley owned property is not effected by the VRA, voting being the main subject of this act. All in all, I feel as though this contention is highly over exaggerated and mostly based on speculation. In the years Sec 4 was up, our government was not effected negatively.
mcalcara

Pro

mcalcara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lucas.Aho 3 years ago
Lucas.Aho
I understand. That was the reason I started this debate, so thanks for the practise.
Posted by mcalcara 3 years ago
mcalcara
I had a debate tournament. Please consider this...
Posted by mcalcara 3 years ago
mcalcara
Its ok. Do you want me to ff my round and continue as normal?
Posted by Lucas.Aho 3 years ago
Lucas.Aho
Sorry, wasn't able to finish it off, I have a lot going on, please vote for mcalcara for following through on this debate
No votes have been placed for this debate.