The Instigator
zjk786
Pro (for)
The Contender
Cancelled by Instigator
Open Debate

the supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act 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  
Debate Cancelled
This debate was cancelled by the Instigator. If you are zjk786, login to see your options.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Cancelled by Instigator
Viewed: 3,670 times Debate No: 44271
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

zjk786

Pro

I. SECTION 4 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT UNDERMINES FEDERALISM.
A. THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT DEPRIVES STATES OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNANCE.
William Consovoy, (Attorney, Washington, D.C.), SUPREME COURT REVIEW, Sept. 23, 2013, 31.
Preclearance deviates from our constitutional order in fundamental ways. Under our system of
government, states are sovereign in the field of state and local elections. Yet preclearance deprived them
of the right to self-government. It is therefore difficult to overstate just how novel preclearance is. For
example, the Americans with Disabilities Act prevents state and local courthouses from denying access to
the handicapped, but it does not require state and local governments to "preclear" their architectural
drawings with DOJ before breaking ground on a new building. Therein lies the difference. It is one thing to
ban discrimination in voting. It is another to place an entire region of the country in federal receivership.
James Hirsen, (Attorney, Justice and Freedom Fund), AMICUS CURIAE, Dec. 28, 2012. Retrieved Jan. 4,
2014 from http://www.americanbar.org...-
96_pet_amcu_jff.authcheckdam.pdf.
VRA's preclearance requirement is "one of the most extraordinary remedial provisions in an Act noted
for its broad remedies. . . . Its encroachment on state sovereignty is significant and undeniable." As Justice
Powell warned, this "encroachment is especially troubling because it destroys local control of the means of
self-government, one of the central values of our polity." (ellipsis in original)
James Hirsen, (Attorney, Justice and Freedom Fund), AMICUS CURIAE, Dec. 28, 2012. Retrieved Jan. 4,
2014 from http://www.americanbar.org...-
96_pet_amcu_jff.authcheckdam.pdf.
The power to require federal permission for the enactment of state laws clashes with the Guaranty
Clause, "approaching dangerously close to wiping the States out as useful and effective units in the
government of our country." The preclearance procedure "is reminiscent of the deeply resented practices
used by the English crown in dealing with the American colonies," including "the King's practice of holding
legislative and judicial proceedings in inconvenient and distant places." Moreover, proceedings of the
original Constitutional Convention "show beyond all doubt" that Congress was denied veto power over
state laws, because such broad authority would render the States "helpless to function as effective
governments."
B. SECTION 4 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT (VRA) THREATENS THE COLLAPSE OF FEDERALISM.
C. SECTION 4 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT VIOLATES THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION.
John Roberts, (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, writing the Majority Opinion), SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., JUNE 25, 2013. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2014 from
http://www.supremecourt.gov....
State legislation may not contravene federal law. States retain broad autonomy, however, in
structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment reserves
to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government, including "the power to
regulate elections." There is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States, which
is highly pertinent in assessing disparate treatment of States. The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from
these basic principles. It requires States to beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement
laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own. And despite the tradition
of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and additional counties).Kevin Clarkson, (Staff), ALASKA BAR RAG, Sept. 2013, 11.
The Majority's reasoning rests heavily upon concepts of federalism and state sovereignty. The
Constitution and laws of the United States are supreme. But, this does not give the Federal Government a
general right to review and veto state enactments before they go into effect. A proposal to grant the
Federal Government the authority to "negate" state laws was considered at the Constitutional Convention,
but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to take effect subject to later challenge under the Supremacy
Clause. By our system of federalism, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and
pursuing legislative objectives. And, by the Tenth Amendment, all powers not specifically granted to the
Federal Government are reserved to the States and the People. This structure of federalism, the Shelby
County Majority explains, "preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States."
Sovereignty which is fundamentally required to be equal among the States. As the Court explained, our
Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA
"sharply depart from these basic principals."
II. SECTION 4 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT VIOLATES "EQUAL SOVEREIGNTY."
A. SECTION 4 CREATES A CATEGORY OF "SECOND CLASS" STATES, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.
Herbert Titus, (Attorney, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research), AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF,
Jan. 2, 2013. Retrieved Jan. 4, 2014 from
http://www.americanbar.org...-
96_pet_amcu_alfppr-etal.authcheckdam.pdf.
By treating the two voting concerns unequally, VRA sends a divisive message that the covered
jurisdictions are second-class States, not "equal in power, dignity, and authority, each competent to exert
that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself."
James Hirsen, (Attorney, Justice and Freedom Fund), AMICUS CURIAE, Dec. 28, 2012. Retrieved Jan. 4,
2014 from http://www.americanbar.org...-
96_pet_amcu_jff.authcheckdam.pdf.
The preclearance mandate holds Shelby County and other covered jurisdictions to a higher standard
than the rest of the nation, jeopardizing not only citizen participation in the local political process"but also
the equal sovereignty of the States. "The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity,
dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States." This Court recently reinforced the importance of
maintaining "the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system... [o]therwise the
two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one
central government, and individual liberty would suffer." (ellipsis in original)
John Roberts, (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, writing the Majority Opinion), SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., JUNE 25, 2013. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2014 from
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by moneystacker 9 months ago
moneystacker
I understand what your arguing but I suggest you change it. It's the common everyday thing a lot of people will be running not hard to attack it either. Try actually finding how section 4 violates the constitution and where at.

racism in voting is way less severe then it was in 1965.
you are simply arguing that racism is not as pronounced at the time, not that it doesn"t exist. Just proves its outdated and stuff.
Posted by moneystacker 9 months ago
moneystacker
He is arguing the right thing actually but this is why I hate the pro side. It sucks and is so complicated to understand while the con arguments are basic to understand and fun to do.
Posted by YYW 10 months ago
YYW
What the hell is this?
Posted by Krazzy_Player 10 months ago
Krazzy_Player
WTF? Dude this is a debate section. What are you trying to prove or Argue?
This debate has 10 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.