Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a key component of the civil rights movement that seeks to enforce the Constitutions guarantee of every Americans right to vote under the 15th Amendment. The Voting Rights Act was designed to end discrimination against black Americans, particularly those in the South after the Civil War. Text of the Voting Rights Act An important provision of the Voting Rights Act reads: No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. The provision reflected the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads: The right of U.S. citizens 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. History of the Voting Rights Act President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965. The law made it illegal for Congress and state governments to pass voting laws based on race and has been described as the most effective civil rights law ever enacted. Among other provisions, the act prohibited discrimination through the use of poll taxes and the application of literacy tests to determine whether voters could take part in elections. It is widely regarded as enabling the enfranchisement of millions of minority voters and diversifying the electorate and legislative bodies at all levels of American government, according to The Leadership Conference, which advocates for civil rights. Legal Battles The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several major rulings on the Voting Rights Act. The first was in 1966. The court initially upheld the constitutionality of the law. Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states to get federal approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before making any changes to their election laws. That preclearance provision was originally set to expire in 1970 but was extended numerous times by Congress. The decision was 5-4. Voting to invalidate that provision in the act were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Voting in favor of keeping the law intact were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts, writing for the majority, said that portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was outdated and that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions. In the 2013 decision, Roberts cited data that showed turnout among black voters had grown to exceed that of white voters in most of the states originally covered by the Voting Rights Act. His comments suggest that discrimination against blacks had diminished greatly since the 1950s and 1960s. States Impacted The provision struck down by the 2013 ruling covered nine states, most of them in the South. Those states are: AlabamaAlaskaArizonaGeorgiaLouisianaMississippiSouth CarolinaTexasVirginia End of the Voting Rights Act The Supreme Courts 2013 ruling was decried by critics who said it gutted the law. President Barack Obama was sharply critical of the decision. I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent. The ruling was praised, however, in states that had been overseen by the federal government. In South Caroline, Attorney General Alan Wilson described the law as an extraordinary intrusion into state sovereignty in certain states. This is a victory for all voters as all states can now act equally without some having to ask for permission or being required to jump through the extraordinary hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy. Congress was expected to take up revisions of the invalidated section of the law in the summer of 2013.

Charles Murray And Ken Robinson - 1226 Words

Both Charles Murray and Ken Robinson have their opinions on what the major flaws are in the education system. Murray s problem lies with the false accreditation of the BA, while Robinson s problem revolves around the killing of creativity in schools. Murray and Robinson s opinions are certainly different, however, they both share the same ultimate goal regarding education. This goal is to rid the education system of these issues in order to create a more effective system of learning. There are surely many problems with the education system today, and not all of them can be fixed in a short period of time. However, major situations such as this need to be dealt with in order to reach a solution in a timely manner. If both Murray and†¦show more content†¦This goal can be met by building value in creativity , and finding a better way to measure student s skills and knowledge. Finding a better way to measure skills and talents will be key in allowing students to cultivate the ir strengths and passions in life. Standardized testing is not effective for measuring the special talents and skills of students. New and efficient methods of measurement need to be implemented in order for students to recognize their special abilities. Charles Murray had the same thoughts about education. His problems with the education system are that the Bachelors s Degree (BA) is not an accurate representation of a person s overall intelligence. Murray thinks a person s time is better used in apprenticeship than in four unnecessary years in college. Murray believes this false accreditation of the BA has taken the time away from students who have no interest in sitting in class for four years and has ruined the future of people who can simply not afford college. Murray s solution to this problem is to reconstruct the overall worth of the BA, with the help of others. Murray s ultimate goal is to alter the way employer s measure a person s competence in a particular field of wo rk by more carefully considering their skills and talents. Overall, I think what Murray sees as the purpose of education is to teach students fundamental skills while preparing them for

The Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage Free Essays

The notion that for every wrong done there should be penalty to a similar degree is known to people since time immemorial. There was a time when a state did not consider personal injuries to be crimes against society and it was only a matter between two families. At present such matter is taken over by the state and is immensely considered to be criminal behaviour. We will write a custom essay sample on The Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage or any similar topic only for you Order Now If it is proved that one has murdered, he or she is usually sententenced to life imprisonment. But is this penalty appropriate for such a heinous crime? Should capital punishment be reinstated? Do many people deeply support it? There is a well-known quotation widely used in Mahatma Gandhi‘s policy of non-violence which states: â€Å"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind†. If we respond to every single injury, in our society there would be no need for laws and we could all be primitive again. To put one to death in the electic chair to show that murder is wrong is contradiction in policy that confuses criminals and undermines any criminal deterence capital punishment was intended to have. The most recent FBI data clearly demonstrates that countries with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than those without. Moreover, study after study has found that the capital punishment is much more expensive than live in prison as the process of it is far more complex than for any kind of crime. The largest costs come at trial stages when it is decided whether or not sentence defendant to death. This shows that countries do not need this extreme threat to prevent crime. The anti-death-penalty morality arguments of some Christians are persuasive to many. It is assumed that God commanded â€Å"You should not murder† and that this is a clear instruction with no exceptions. According to Christians, only God should create and destroy our lives. Opponents of capital punishment vemently believe that execute one using an electric chair is the kind of revenge and human judgment that Jesus so often warned against. Therefore, death penalty is incompatible with a teaching which emphasises forgiveness and compassion that are fundamental tenets of Christianity. Futhermore, some Christians argue that in many countries the imposition of the death penalty is biased against the poor. Since Christian teaching is to support the poor, Christians are highly likely to be called the opponents of death penalty. Some people argue that the death penalty may bring a closure to the victim’s family. They would not have to worry that it could happen to another family. However, some families of murder victims are against it on the moral grounds. They deeply believe that death penalty will do the same damage to families like theirs. It is widely assumed that it would be a better punishment if someone would die repenting and trying to make up for crimes. When people have been killed there is no chance of rehabilitation that makes criminals see their mistakes and there is a possibility that these previously dangerous people will turn into productive citizens that contribute to society and help make life better. The system can make tragic mistakes. No reliable data could show how many people have been executed for crimes that they did not commit. Unfortunately, such errors do occur. A film „The Life of David Galeâ€Å" makes overwhelming impression convincingly demonstrating a life of a man who is found guilty of murder and awaits his execution. The entire movie is designed to show what happens when an innocent man is sententenced – his family, marriage, career and reputation are all destroyed. Another movie based on a similar story is „The Green Mileâ€Å". A giant black man convicted of raping and killing two young girls is sentenced to death. While on the death row, we learn that he is innocent but there is no way to stop his inevitable execution. This proves that if in real life the government makes a mistake putting one to death in the electric chair, innocent people can always be released from prison, however, they can never be brought back from death. Capital punishment is immoral and a violation of natural rights. It is wrong for everyone involved: criminals, victims’ families and the prosecuted innocent. It should be replaced by a safer and more inexpensive option. The death penalty does not guarantee safety for innocent victims, it does not effectively deter crime, and it does not usually give closure to victims’ families. Nothing good comes of hate, and nothing good can ever come from capital punishment. How to cite The Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage, Essays