Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Seriously, guys?

tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 11:44:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm just hearing about this now

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Whereas the DOMA ruling was all over the news and people's Facebook statuses. But really? Seriously? Come on.

America, the land of the free right? What a joke.
yang.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 11:57:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You didn't hear about this?

If you're interested in this sort of thing, you should on occasion check out:

http://www.scotusblog.com...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 12:01:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 11:57:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
You didn't hear about this?


Nope. American politics generally annoy me so I avoid keeping up with it. Even so, I heard about DOMA on the news, through DDO and through Facebook. It's irksome that no one in my life (including DDO) has brought it up before.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, you should on occasion check out:

http://www.scotusblog.com...

I'll add that to my favourites. Thanks!
yang.
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 8:01:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 11:44:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I'm just hearing about this now

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Whereas the DOMA ruling was all over the news and people's Facebook statuses. But really? Seriously? Come on.

America, the land of the free right? What a joke.

I remember listening to NPR the day after this ruling. It sounded like the Justices took away the part that requires certain states to get monitored by the Feds because the opposition lawyers could not prove there was not evidence of voting discrimination in the near past.

Ironically that was because they required to have the Fed oversee their voting laws and redistricting efforts.

All is not lost though. All the other previsions still hold true, so any contentious voting law changes at the state will go through civil courts as people sue rather than Fed over sight.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 8:50:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The ruling was idiotic. If a hungry man eats a meal and satisfies his hunger, it would be foolish for him to decide that he doesn't need to eat any more. I do think that certain states should not be singled out; the restrictions should apply to all states.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 7:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. ThinkProgress is a joke.

2. I thought GlobalResearch was at least somewhat legitimate. That article was a horrendous dribble of partisan commentary, in which the word "right" was mentioned about 30 times. Ridiculous.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 9:34:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 7:09:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1. ThinkProgress is a joke.

2. I thought GlobalResearch was at least somewhat legitimate. That article was a horrendous dribble of partisan commentary, in which the word "right" was mentioned about 30 times. Ridiculous.

Let me guess: You see no problem with the ruling?
yang.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 4:37:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 11:44:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I'm just hearing about this now

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Whereas the DOMA ruling was all over the news and people's Facebook statuses. But really? Seriously? Come on.

America, the land of the free right? What a joke.

Lol, way to use the most biased link possible.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 4:37:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Whatever legalistic wording or tortured logic is applied, the ugly truth is that the narrow right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is at war with American democracy."

I mean c'mon, really?
Nolite Timere
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 4:37:59 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
"Whatever legalistic wording or tortured logic is applied, the ugly truth is that the narrow right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is at war with American democracy."

I mean c'mon, really?

But what of what actually happened? You see nothing wrong with it?
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:08:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.

If that's what they do, and say that all states need to go through the feds, then yeah, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is striking it down completely. Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?
yang.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 8:08:58 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.

If that's what they do, and say that all states need to go through the feds, then yeah, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is striking it down completely. Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?

I don't know much about this, but if the law only actually applied to certain states, then that's a constitutional issue. Congress can't make laws singling out certain states. It has to apply to all, or it isn't constitutional.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 10:21:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 8:05:03 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/7/2013 4:37:59 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
"Whatever legalistic wording or tortured logic is applied, the ugly truth is that the narrow right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is at war with American democracy."

I mean c'mon, really?

But what of what actually happened? You see nothing wrong with it?

I'll have to research on it. I didn't get to that part in the article before I ragequit. XD
Nolite Timere
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 7:14:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 8:38:56 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:08:58 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.

If that's what they do, and say that all states need to go through the feds, then yeah, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is striking it down completely. Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?

I don't know much about this, but if the law only actually applied to certain states, then that's a constitutional issue. Congress can't make laws singling out certain states. It has to apply to all, or it isn't constitutional.

Could you show me which clause of the Constitution indicates this? Congress has crafted laws that single out certain states several times, and it has never been declared unconstitutional on those grounds. In fact, the only reason that this was struck down is that there is no evidence of discrimination (meaning it was struck down for working).
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 7:15:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's almost like the court was like "Oh, here's something that's actually working the way it's supposed to! We can't have that! Delete!"
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 8:16:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 7:14:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:38:56 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:08:58 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.

If that's what they do, and say that all states need to go through the feds, then yeah, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is striking it down completely. Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?

I don't know much about this, but if the law only actually applied to certain states, then that's a constitutional issue. Congress can't make laws singling out certain states. It has to apply to all, or it isn't constitutional.

Could you show me which clause of the Constitution indicates this? Congress has crafted laws that single out certain states several times, and it has never been declared unconstitutional on those grounds. In fact, the only reason that this was struck down is that there is no evidence of discrimination (meaning it was struck down for working).

Article I Section 8 (enumerated powers)

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

If you'll notice, it says that they have exclusive legislation over DC, but that Congress has "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"

Article I Section 9

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Here it specifies that Congress may make general laws, not specific.

Article IV Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


This of course means that every citizen is protected equally under federal law, not differently depending on which state they are from.

Article IV Section 3

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This explicitly states that no prejudice can be applied to any particular state.

Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Here it said that all laws of the United States (which are made by Congress) are the supreme law of the land and judges of all states are bound by it.

Essentially, yes, my claim is supported in the Constitution multiple times. The only reason Congress is able to get away with it is because their legislation is legal until it is challenged and brought to the Supreme Court. This was a direct response to Tulle's question, "Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?" If the Justices didn't include this in their reasoning and the law didn't apply to all states, then that was their mistake.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 8:11:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@classic, the logic is still not there. If something is working, you dont strike it down because not all states have it. You make it mandatory for all states.
yang.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 8:31:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 8:11:54 PM, tulle wrote:
@classic, the logic is still not there. If something is working, you dont strike it down because not all states have it. You make it mandatory for all states.

In that case, sure, make it apply to all states. That being said, the Supreme Court does not have that legislative ability. Congress can go ahead and do that though.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 8:38:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 8:31:36 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/8/2013 8:11:54 PM, tulle wrote:
@classic, the logic is still not there. If something is working, you dont strike it down because not all states have it. You make it mandatory for all states.

In that case, sure, make it apply to all states. That being said, the Supreme Court does not have that legislative ability. Congress can go ahead and do that though.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Voting Rights Act was a good thing. That being said, the Supreme Court was perfectly justified in striking it down as unconstitutional (if that was their reasoning. I will read the majority and minority opinion in a little bit). It is the Supreme Court's job to uphold the Constitution. If something unconstitutional is brought to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court isn't doing their job if they don't strike it down.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 8:48:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 8:16:00 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/8/2013 7:14:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:38:56 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:08:58 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.

If that's what they do, and say that all states need to go through the feds, then yeah, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is striking it down completely. Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?

I don't know much about this, but if the law only actually applied to certain states, then that's a constitutional issue. Congress can't make laws singling out certain states. It has to apply to all, or it isn't constitutional.

Could you show me which clause of the Constitution indicates this? Congress has crafted laws that single out certain states several times, and it has never been declared unconstitutional on those grounds. In fact, the only reason that this was struck down is that there is no evidence of discrimination (meaning it was struck down for working).

Article I Section 8 (enumerated powers)

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

If you'll notice, it says that they have exclusive legislation over DC, but that Congress has "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"

Article I Section 9

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Here it specifies that Congress may make general laws, not specific.

Article IV Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


This of course means that every citizen is protected equally under federal law, not differently depending on which state they are from.

Article IV Section 3

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This explicitly states that no prejudice can be applied to any particular state.

That's not what that means. This clause refers to the federal government's authority to make laws governing federal territory but does not interfere with the then current territorial claims of the federal government and existing states.

It's perfectly legal for Congress to apply special scrutiny on those states which have displayed a consistent resistance to the rights delineated by the Equal Protection Clause and 15th Amendment and have a history consistent with that behavior. This enforces the will of the Constitution, not the reverse.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 9:16:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 8:48:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/8/2013 8:16:00 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/8/2013 7:14:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:38:56 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/7/2013 8:08:58 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/7/2013 6:04:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Didn't the ruling just say the law needed updated.
Congress can decide all states need to go to the feds to change voting laws. No reason to single out a few states based on decades old data.

If that's what they do, and say that all states need to go through the feds, then yeah, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is striking it down completely. Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?

I don't know much about this, but if the law only actually applied to certain states, then that's a constitutional issue. Congress can't make laws singling out certain states. It has to apply to all, or it isn't constitutional.

Could you show me which clause of the Constitution indicates this? Congress has crafted laws that single out certain states several times, and it has never been declared unconstitutional on those grounds. In fact, the only reason that this was struck down is that there is no evidence of discrimination (meaning it was struck down for working).

Article I Section 8 (enumerated powers)

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

If you'll notice, it says that they have exclusive legislation over DC, but that Congress has "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be"

Article I Section 9

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Here it specifies that Congress may make general laws, not specific.

Article IV Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


This of course means that every citizen is protected equally under federal law, not differently depending on which state they are from.

Article IV Section 3

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This explicitly states that no prejudice can be applied to any particular state.

That's not what that means. This clause refers to the federal government's authority to make laws governing federal territory but does not interfere with the then current territorial claims of the federal government and existing states.

It's perfectly legal for Congress to apply special scrutiny on those states which have displayed a consistent resistance to the rights delineated by the Equal Protection Clause and 15th Amendment and have a history consistent with that behavior. This enforces the will of the Constitution, not the reverse.

Alright, I can see how my interpretation of the last one could be a little misinformed. The 15th Amendment does allow Congress to legislate to fix the issue of voting, but does not allow Congress to target specific states. All laws made by Congress are supposed to apply to all states, which I've already shown. If the states are doing something unconstitutional, then this can be brought to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can strike the unconstitutional action down. From my understanding of the Voting Rights Act, if it applied to all states, and did not target specific states, then it would be perfectly constitutional.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 9:31:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 9:16:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Alright, I can see how my interpretation of the last one could be a little misinformed. The 15th Amendment does allow Congress to legislate to fix the issue of voting, but does not allow Congress to target specific states. All laws made by Congress are supposed to apply to all states, which I've already shown. If the states are doing something unconstitutional, then this can be brought to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can strike the unconstitutional action down. From my understanding of the Voting Rights Act, if it applied to all states, and did not target specific states, then it would be perfectly constitutional.

I'm sure that arbitrarily discriminating against certain states isn't constitutional, but consider what qualifies as discrimination. Is a state that receives less federal funding than another being discriminated against? Is a state with more occupying federal territory being discriminated against? There's no law that states that all states must be treated equally. And where there is justifiable cause to employ different federal scrutiny to different states, what's the objection to it? ALL states are bound by the same congressional & constitutional voting laws,...some are just more likely to break them than others...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 9:45:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 9:31:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/8/2013 9:16:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Alright, I can see how my interpretation of the last one could be a little misinformed. The 15th Amendment does allow Congress to legislate to fix the issue of voting, but does not allow Congress to target specific states. All laws made by Congress are supposed to apply to all states, which I've already shown. If the states are doing something unconstitutional, then this can be brought to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can strike the unconstitutional action down. From my understanding of the Voting Rights Act, if it applied to all states, and did not target specific states, then it would be perfectly constitutional.

I'm sure that arbitrarily discriminating against certain states isn't constitutional, but consider what qualifies as discrimination. Is a state that receives less federal funding than another being discriminated against?

Not if the rule is applied equally to that state.

Is a state with more occupying federal territory being discriminated against? There's no law that states that all states must be treated equally. And where there is justifiable cause to employ different federal scrutiny to different states, what's the objection to it? ALL states are bound by the same congressional & constitutional voting laws,...some are just more likely to break them than others...

Well, if the Voting Rights Act applied equally to all states, but it was only a problem for some states, then the Voting Rights Act is just fine. If it only targeted certain states and the rules didn't apply to all states, then it is not constitutional, and the Supreme Court was only doing it's job by striking it down. I haven't looked into the Voting Rights Act; I only posted my constitutional response to answer Tulle's question "Where is the logic in something doing its job in some states, then striking it down because not all states have it?" and then RoyalPaladin's request for Constitutional clarification. Which scenario is it? Does it apply to all states, or does it only apply to some states?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder