The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2010, 04:54 PM   #1
Redux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP? They need to pad the elections. Remember nearly everything that happens or is said by the Dems between now and Nov is in an effort to stave off greater losses in the elections. Politics as usual.
This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.

Using at-large elections to increase or maintain the influence of the White majority or conversely, decrease or discourage the representation of minorities in a community has been a long-standing violation of the Voting Rights Act under all administrations since it was enacted (well, except for Bush).

Last edited by Redux; 06-15-2010 at 05:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 05:41 PM   #2
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux View Post
This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.
Bullshit.
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 05:58 PM   #3
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Where are all the conspiracy theorists hiding ...

Wasn't this the ideal "proof-of-principle" experiment for re-wiring the touch-screen voting machines with no paper trail ?

I'm not usually among the CT crowds, but it seems more credible than multitudes of Republicans agreeing ahead of time that they should cross their votes over to this particular candidate.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 06:53 PM   #4
Redux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Bullshit.
I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 07:16 PM   #5
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux View Post
I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.
Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 07:43 PM   #6
Redux
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!
Perhaps an education on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will help...but I doubt it.

Quote:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that the section, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th amendment. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Under that standard, a plaintiff had to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.

In 1982, Congress extended certain provisions of the Act such as Section 5 that were set to expire, and added protections for voters who required assistance in voting. At the same time, it examined the history of litigation under Section 2 since 1965 and concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_2/about_sec2.php
Are you one of those extremists who think we shouldnt have a voting rights act?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.