BIA HISTORY LESSON FRO TODAY...THE SUPREME COURT IS TAKING UP THE CIVIL RIGHT'S VOTING ACT LAW...AND, BECAUSE (352 hits)
WE ALREADY KNOW THIS SUPREME COURT HAS SET UP A VOTER SUPRESSION LAW VIA CITIZENS UNITED...WILL WE IN OUR COMMUNITY (SPECIFIC) BE UNINTERESTED ENOUGH IN THIS TO EVEN POST THE ON GOING PROCESS THAT WILL BE COVERED ON C-SPAN OVER THE SOUND BITES / BRAINWASHINGS OF OUR BIGGEST PUBLIC CLASS ROOM THE TVCABLE NEWS???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
“The America that elected and reelected Barack Obama as its first African American president is far different than when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965. Congress [in 2006] unwisely reauthorized a bill that is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp. It is unconstitutional.”
– Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, in a statement on November 9 that was widely quoted in the press. He was reacting to the Supreme Court’s agreement to rule on the constitutionality of key parts of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Blum’s organization is a Virginia-based legal advocacy group that often challenges laws that it believes foster racial preferences; the Project is underwriting the lawsuit now before the court.
Tuesday, November 13th 2012 at 2:25PM
DAVID JOHNSON
The 10th Amendment was not added to the Constitution until after that basic document had been ratified, but it was, in fact, actually necessary to help fulfill the promise made at the Philadelphia Convention to the smaller states. That was a pledge that they would not have to give up all of their powers to the new federal government.
Since then, the 10th Amendment has had a rather checkered history: Sometimes, it has worked as a strong curb on federal authority, other times much less so. But whenever it has had a genuine revival, that has usually come from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Right now, it is having another such revival at the hands of the court, and that–more than anything else–explains why the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the most important provision of the 1965 law that has been the nation’s most successful civil rights law.
The 10th Amendment, of course, embodies the concept that the federal government’s powers are limited to specific grants by the Constitution itself, so the remainder of governing authority is “reserved to the states…, or to the people.”
Because of the limits on national power, James Madison actually thought the 10th Amendment was unnecessary, but he would later yield to the political reality that it had to be a part of the Constitution.
Its potency as a check on the federal government was not truly demonstrated until 1883, when the Supreme Court relied upon it to strike down a major post-Civil War civil rights law. Periodically after that, the court would breathe new life into it, as it did during the New Deal and, most recently, in the 1980s and 1990s, in what has been called the “federalism revolution” in the court.
Among the current members of the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has come to be regarded as the primary guardian of the sovereignty and dignity of the state governments, and he considers their role to be part of the basic design of the Constitution. He has written that the guarantee of federalism written into the 10th Amendment is important not only to the state governments themselves, but to the whole notion of individual liberty.
In that role, he was a sharp critic of the 1965 Voting Rights Act three years ago, when the court last heard a case on the constitutionality of the key provision of that law–Section 5.
That is the section that requires nine state governments (mostly in the South) and local governments in seven other states to get official approval in Washington before they may put into effect any new law or procedure on elections and voting.
Tuesday, November 13th 2012 at 2:26PM
DAVID JOHNSON
Congress singled those out because, in past history, they had had the worst records on racial discrimination in voting. But Congress has not updated the formula on which state and local governments get covered since adopting the baseline year of 1972, even while repeatedly extending the law, and covered states have been arguing strenuously in recent years that they have changed and that the law is unconstitutional when it applies only to them.
In a 2009 hearing, Justice Kennedy conceded the importance of Section 5: “I think this Section 5 preclearance device has been shown to be very, very successful.” But he then added: “The question is whether or not it can be justified when other states are not covered today.”
At another point in the hearing, Kennedy made his objection even clearer: “Congress has made a finding that the sovereignty of Georgia is less than the sovereign dignity of Ohio. The sovereignty of Alabama is less than the sovereign dignity of Michigan. And the governments in one are to be trusted less than the governments in the other.”
When the decision in that case came out later in 2009, the court opted to bypass the constitutionality question, but its opinion attempted to send a strong signal to Congress that it was time to update the law. Congress had extended the law in 2006, for a renewal period of 25 years, but it did not change the coverage rule. It had found that the most serious problems of discrimination continued to be centered in the covered areas.
Whether or not Congress could muster the votes to alter Section 5 after the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision, the lawmakers made no change, and did not even conduct a new review of the law. That prompted covered states to begin a new round of challenges, relying on what they regarded as the strong hints the Supreme Court had sent.
Civil rights groups will be arguing that the court should continue to defer to Congress’ findings that Section 5 is still needed, and it is still valid for only those states that are covered.
But, going into the court’s planned review, they appear to face a major obstacle: Justice Kennedy, and how he reads the 10th Amendment. The review will focus on Congress’s power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, but the 10th Amendment is the true constitutional heart of the challenge.
Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 54 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.
Tuesday, November 13th 2012 at 2:27PM
DAVID JOHNSON
this is what i found on brown v board
Today's public understanding of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education has been shaped by misconception and inaccurate information.
While Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most important milestones in U.S. history, it is often misunderstood. Below are commonly held myths about the case, and the realities of what actually transpired.
****** Myth Brown v. Board of Education was the first legal challenge to racially segregated schools in the United States.
Truth African American parents began to challenge racial segregation in public education as early as 1849 in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston, Massachusetts. Kansas was the site of eleven such cases spanning from 1881 to 1949.
******* Myth The Brown case in Kansas came about because Linda Brown was denied access to her neighborhood school and had to walk dozens of blocks to attend an African American school.
Truth The Brown case was initiated and organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) leadership who recruited African American parents in Topeka for a class action suit against the local school board. Although school buses were provided for African American children, they were only allowed to attend designated public schools based on race.
********* Myth The only plaintiff in the Brown case was Oliver Brown on behalf of his daughter.
Truth In 1952, Brown v. Board was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court as a combination of five cases from various parts of the country, representing nearly 200 hundred plaintiffs.
********* Myth Oliver Brown's name led the roster in the Topeka case because it was the first alphabetically of the 13 NAACP plaintiffs.
Truth The Kansas case was named after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. There actually were two plaintiffs with the surname of Brown: Darlene Brown and Oliver Brown. The only male plaintiff was Oliver Brown, for whom the Topeka case was named.
******** Myth Oliver Brown initiated the suit against the Topeka Board of Education.
Truth Oliver Brown was asked to join the class action suit by Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the Topeka NAACP.
******** Myth The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education was based on the Topeka case.
Truth The Supreme Court combined five cases under the heading of Brown v. Board of Education from Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Those individual cases were: Belton v. Gebhart (Bulah v. Gebhart) Brown v. Board of Education (Kansas) Briggs v. Elliott (South Carolina) Davis v. School Board of Prince Edward County (Virginia) Bolling v. Sharpe (District of Columbia) ********** Myth Thurgood Marshall was the NAACP attorney for the case of Brown v. Board of Education.
Truth The strategy to use the courts to challenge segregation in public education began with the NAACP under the leadership of Attorney Charles Hamilton Houston during the 1930's. Houston was the former Dean of Howard University Law School. Thurgood Marshall was hired into the NAACP by Houston, and worked on Brown with a team of attorneys.
******* Myth The objective of the NAACP’s legal challenge in the Brown v. Board of Education, was to eliminate segregation in public education.
Truth Ultimately , the NAACP sought to end the practice of “separate but equal” throughout every segment of society, including public transportation, dining facilities, public schools and all forms of public accomodation.
******** Brown II and Brown III The initial court ruling rendered in 1954 that determined racial segregation in public education was unconstitutional is known as Brown I. The court implementation mandate of "with all deliberate speed" in 1955 is known as Brown II. In 1979, three young African American attorneys in Topeka petitioned the court to reopen the original Brown case to examine whether or not the local School Board had in fact ended all vestiges of segregation in public schools. That case is known as Brown III, which resulted in Topeka Public Schools building three magnet schools to comply with the court's findings.
O-N-E MORE STEP "FORWARD" FROM THE PITY ME FROM BIRTH TO DEATH AS TEH V-I-C-T-I-M (SMILE)
"I" GLADLY FOLLOW YOU MY PRESIDENT IN THIS MOVE "F-O-W-A-R-D"...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
"I"LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD AND THIS IS WHY I CONTINUE TO SAY WE AS A RACE HAVE ALWAYS AND STILL VOTER AS OUR PRIORITY OUR CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS...
AND, WHY "I" CONTINUE TO SAY NOT ONE LAW WE GOT IN THE 60S IS OF ANY USE IN THIS CENTURE AND LIKE EVERY THING ELSE...
TH EONLY WAY TO SURVIVE IS TO CHANGE WITH THE ENVIORNMENT OF WHICH ONE LIVES. (SMILE)
IN THE 50S AND 60S WE REFUSED TO EVEN TINK THAT WE HAD ACHIEVED EQUALITY...TODAY TOO MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT SINCE WE NOW HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT WE HAVE ACHIEVED SOMETHING IN OUR FAVOR WHEN TEH REVERSE IS TRUE. (NUP)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...THIS NATION DISPITE : RACE, CREED, SKIN COLOR, GENDER MUST STILL OBEY THE LAWS OF OUR SUPREME COURT, PERIOD...
OR CHANGE THEM... (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
NOW DAVID...WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS WE BY WAY OF THE NATIONAL NAACP ALWAYS WIN OUR CASES BY WAY OF USING " PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR"...AND TIS MAKES THIS...
THE 'PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OF SAY TENN. CAN NOT APPLY TO PA. SINCE RACE/ RACISM/ EQAUL JUSTICE IS TOTALLY DIFFERNETLY APPLIED IN TEH SOUTH AND THE ORTH...
AGAIN IS WHY "I" ALSO STRESS FO RUS TO LEARN WHAT BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REALLY ALLABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!! (NUP!!!!/ SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...OR WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER LOOK ,SEE AT OR CONSTITUTION'S SAYING OF
...ALL MEN ARE C-R-E-A -T-E-D EQUAL IS WHY THE NATIONAL NACP HAS TO GO TO OUR SUPREME COURT TO CREATE A RATIONA
L THAT WE HAVE JUST CREATED A PEOPLE THAT MUST BE TREATED AS EQUAL...EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!.. OR HELL, WE WOULD OT SPEND LIVE TIME TRYING TO PROVE THE BIBLE WRONG THAT GOD CREATED MAN IN HISOWN IMAGE...RIGHT? LOL!!! (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
@DAVID WHAT BVBOE IS ABOUT IS ...
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES IN AMERICA ND ITS TERRITORIES...IT EVEN COVERS THE RICH CAN'T PAY TAXES AND THE MIDDLE-CLASS MUST PAY TAXES. TO WE HAVE A CHICE E TO LEARN THAT THOELIKE ME HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT THE DEFINITION OF EQUALITY WHEN IT COMES TO ME ANTING TO BE COUNTED AS 'EQUAL' OVE MY ACCEPTANCE OF BEING A MEMBER OF A UNIQUE RACE OF PEOPLE WHERE ONE IS ONLY ALLOWED IN DUE TO PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. LOL!!! (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
AND, DAVID EVEN MORE IMPORTANT BVBOE IS A 'LIVING DOCUMENT' TAHT CAN NOT BE DEFINED NOR LIMITED TO INFO FOUND ON THE NET, IT MUST BE ABLE TO BE A PART ON ONES DAILY LIFE AND WHY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS BEING REJECTED AS IT IS...
EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!! (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
NOW TO MORE OF OUR TRUE BIA HISTORY...BVBOE WAS A FARTHER INFORCEMENT OF TEH SUPREME COURT'S PASSAGE OF A VERSION OF IT IN 1922 BY BLACK ATTORNEYS FILED CASE IN NY...BUT AGAIN IT IS BETTER TO GO ALONG WITH THE POSERS TAHT BE'S VESION UNTIL WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT OUR OWN COMMUNITY'S BLACK POWERS, RIGHT???????? (NUP!!!)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...OOPS AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS BEING KEPT FROM US IS JUST ANOTHER VERSON OF BLACK SLAVESCOULD NOT READ OR WRITE SINCE TIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN 1922 WITHOUR US HAVING EVEN A 'TOKEN' BLACK ON THE SC. (N...................................................U..........................................P)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
