The Voting Rights Act is crap

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Enlighten me. And I say that claim is dishonest. It is NOT an act to enforce the 15th Amendment. Only sections 2 and 3 are relevant to that goal. The main part of the act is not. You've got me here. I was shocked to find that what you say is true. This Act is even more dishonest than I thought. Examine the following excepts: Since a test of someone's knowledge or literacy is not "denying on account of race", the wording of the Act is self-contradictory and nonsensical. Thanks for pointing this out, Rick. My opinion of the Voting Rights Act is now even lower than it was before.

Have you ever seen, Morgan, the films that exist of a white clerk administering the "literacy test" to a poor black who was attempting to register to vote in Mississippi ? If you had, you would know that they banned the practice altogether because it was unfairly and selectively applied and used purely as a device to deny AFRICAN AMERICANS their vote. It does not matter a whit if you do not "believe" or "accept" that this was the focus and purpose of the law. It was.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: zynner (1) I can see the value of a literacy test. It might seem ironic to some that a literacy test would be an improvement in government voting when the government controls education in the first place. I don't find it ironic, though; I find it expected. Just talking about the issue should make it obvious to anyone what a failure the govenrment has been in upholding its self-proclaimed duty to educate the masses.

I understand this is from page one and there's 4 pages in this thread, but I had to address this issue.

There was no such thing as a "literacy test". These tests were just hoops blacks had to leap through in the Jim Crow era. I had a history teacher administer an actual literacy test. While that was over 10 years ago for me, I vaguely remember how it went.

We were each given a blank piece of white paper and a pencil. The instructions were akin to...

1) Fold the paper in half lengthwise.

2) Fold the paper in half again.

(you should have a paper with 4 roughly equal quarters. So far so good)

3) Draw a horizontal line one inch from the top of the paper that is 4 inches long starting at the left side of the paper.

4) Write your name on the left line.

(Okay. Lots of you just failed. Did you print your name? Sorry. The instructions said to WRITE your name (what we would call a signature). You can't vote. Did you write your name on the middle fold or on the line you just drew? Better be over the middle fold or you failed.)

It went on like this. Little word puzzles that had to be done PERFECTLY in order to vote. It was demeaning and served only to disenfranchise. Not one of the questions had anything to do with any of the candidates.

Remember that the Constitution garuntees rights to all individuals regardless of their level of education.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman And I say that claim is dishonest. It is NOT an act to enforce the 15th Amendment. Only sections 2 and 3 are relevant to that goal. The main part of the act is not.

Give me a break. In the above quote, you say in so many words that the letter of the law doesn't matter, it is what it effectively does that is what matters.

Then, you say this:

Improper enforcement is a totally seperate issue, obviously. This is not an argument against the policy, its an argument against racist pollworkers.

In which you are saying that what effectively happens due to a law (in this case laws enacting poll taxes and literacy tests) does not matter, it's that the original law is okay that counts.

So which is it? Is it the outcome of the law or the language that matters? You can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, your assumption of how your system would play out is absurdly short-sighted...

Quote by: tivodan1116 What happens if the rich voters in your government decide to vote for only representatives who agree to make the following law: "Anyone who does not pay taxes should be summarily shot and their meager property divided among the rich." An illegal law, under the Constitution. As a libertarian, obviously I would not agree with such a thing, and neither would the population.

Yes.... And.... What do we do when we want to make a law, but some silly court tells us it's unconstitutional? Hint: See flag burning. It's called AMENDMENTS, dude. Now that only people who can afford poll taxes etc. are voting, they can vote for Congress and state legislatures that will pass amendments to the Constitution saying this sort of thing. Duh.

Let's see, what else do you like? Oh yeah, you love throwing in unsupported "facts"...

The fact remains, there are many stupid people out there whacking levers.

Are there? And what proof do you have of that?

Quote by: tivodan1116 This implies that you think there are uninformed people voting. Doesn't that go without saying?

It goes without saying that you THINK that. However, unless you can show in some way that your thoughts are correct, I see it as just sour grapes i.e., "How could people be so dumb to vote for XYZ party???"

[underbear1]

You may think you have inalienable Rights endowed by your creator. Unless they are recognised, and allowed to be acted upon,in the country you reside in, they are a moot point, and worthless.

[RickSp]

So to sum up this ludicrous waste of posting time:

1. You claim that the Voting Rights Act is crap, yet you obviously had never read it.

2. And even though the title of the bill is "an act to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States", you claim this is dishonest, as you have a better understanding of the Act, that you had never read, than those who wrote it.

What part of this is not insane?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman No need to back that statement up.

You have a whole history of posts to back it up.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman There is nothing libertarian about voting in general.

I somewhat agree.
There will always be those who are willing or even eager to initiate a voting process rather than simply following reason. However, this does not mean voting is NEVER practical or that your literacy tests are a really good idea. Just because someone can read doesn't mean they'd vote partcularly well.

Grandpa h.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Fonceai @MF Okay, simple question then. If your mother had aborted you instead of carrying you, would she have taken your right to life?

No, obviously not.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you had, you would know that they banned the practice altogether because it was unfairly and selectively applied and used purely as a device to deny AFRICAN AMERICANS their vote.

Then they made the wrong choice. Any policy can be misapplied. This is not an argument against the policy itself.

[Fonceai]

@MF

A mother who aborts the child before birth is not taking away the right to life.

How do you figure that one?

Please elaborate more than "obviously not" because it's not so obvious.

If you aren't born yet, how do you have a right to life?

And this ISN'T about abortion and all that stuff. It's about not understanding that a right is NEVER inalienable, NEVER natural, they are all given to you by a person.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Then they made the wrong choice. Any policy can be misapplied. This is not an argument against the policy itself.

In that, you are right, but it IS an argument against your contention that the Voting Rights Act is "crap". And there are other, more detailed arguments against why literacy tests and poll taxes and other such things are a bad idea. You are essentially saying that despite the fact that it can be shown that your proposed policy has been easily abused, can be easily abused in the future and despite the fact that you offer no new protection policy to alleviate the proven danger, it would be a good idea to reinstate these dangerous and costly (to freedom) policies. Why should we listen?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Fonceai If you aren't born yet, how do you have a right to life?

I never said I did. I said that my right to life was not given to me by anyone.

Your mother gives you your life, yes. Once you are alive, you have a right to life. It is an inherent part of being a human.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 In that, you are right, but it IS an argument against your contention that the Voting Rights Act is "crap". And there are other, more detailed arguments against why literacy tests and poll taxes and other such things are a bad idea. You are essentially saying that despite the fact that it can be shown that your proposed policy has been easily abused, can be easily abused in the future and despite the fact that you offer no new protection policy to alleviate the proven danger, it would be a good idea to reinstate these dangerous and costly (to freedom) policies.

Read my arguments again. The Voting Rights Act isn't about whether these policies are good ones or not -- it's about whether they should be illegal or not. I asked how you can justify making these policies illegal at the federal level.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Give me a break. In the above quote, you say in so many words that the letter of the law doesn't matter, it is what it effectively does that is what matters.

No, that's not what I said. I said that intentions are irrelevant. This law is filled with irrelevant rhetoric, which does not constitute "the letter of the law". It's not law. Just like the Preamble of the Constitution which is continually mistaken for law.

Quote by: tivodan1116 In which you are saying that what effectively happens due to a law (in this case laws enacting poll taxes and literacy tests) does not matter, it's that the original law is okay that counts.

No, that's not what I said at all. Government employees abusing a law is not "what effective happens due to the law". It is criminal behavior, and should be dealt with as such.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Now that only people who can afford poll taxes etc. are voting, they can vote for Congress and state legislatures that will pass amendments to the Constitution saying this sort of thing.

Red Herring. Most people would still be able to vote under my system. I've been very clear about that. Why do you keep assuming that these poll taxes have to be astronomical?

Quote by: tivodan1116 Are there? And what proof do you have of that?

No proof except my own experience. Most Americans are unwilling to discuss political issues or think critically about them. These people should not start voting uintil they turn their brain on.

Quote by: tivodan1116 It goes without saying that you THINK that. However, unless you can show in some way that your thoughts are correct, I see it as just sour grapes i.e., "How could people be so dumb to vote for XYZ party???"

I am very curious what sort of experience you've had talking to people about politics. It must have been very different from my own.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp So to sum up this ludicrous waste of posting time: 1. You claim that the Voting Rights Act is crap, yet you obviously had never read it. 2. And even though the title of the bill is "an act to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States", you claim this is dishonest, as you have a better understanding of the Act, that you had never read, than those who wrote it. What part of this is not insane?

You continue to ignore my argument. I have read the Act. I know what it says.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Read my arguments again. The Voting Rights Act isn't about whether these policies are good ones or not -- it's about whether they should be illegal or not. I asked how you can justify making these policies illegal at the federal level.

By showing that the laws are ripe for abuse, have been abused, have caused fundemental harm to individuals and infringe on rights that have been Constitutionally garunteed. What more do you need? If it is your contention that no law that is federal is just, I think you will lose 99 % of your "audience". If you are contending that greater harm is caused by the law than is alleviated by the law, I believe you have failed to make a compelling case.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You continue to ignore my argument. I have read the Act. I know what it says.

You have read the act but deny that legislation entitled "an act to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment" has anything to do with the Fifteenth Amendment. Or is it that you only bothered to read the Act after you start this round of pointless pontification?

Frankly your arguments, such as thery are, are fatuous, at best. The Voting Rights Act came into being to address persistant racism in local government. It has proven relatively effective despite the best efforts of the likes of Jeb Bush.

I grew up in the segrated South so I know that your idiotic distinctions between policy and implementation and on and on seemingly without end, are just so much arrogant blather. You say the Voting Rights Act is crap, spin nonsensical fantasies and play stupid word games. Your arguments are crap - simple as that. Bottom line - literacy tests and poll taxes are unreasonable barriers to voting. Without the VRA, the 15th Amendment is effectively null and void.

[underbear1]

I think there is a more sinister reason why the renewal Voting Act is such a bug up your arse, because it isn't a big problem with the vast majority of Americans.

[grandpa]

Quote by: underbear1 I think there is a more sinister reason why the renewal Voting Act is such a bug up your arse, because it isn't a big problem with the vast majority of Americans.

Well, most of Morgan's views do have a sinister aspect to them.
I think the Voting Act means renewal of the principles of democracy, which means relative equality for all. Morgan seems to be for a biased, elitist system that excludes groups and features private, unaccountable force for rent.

Grandpa h.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 By showing that the laws are ripe for abuse, have been abused, have caused fundemental harm to individuals and infringe on rights that have been Constitutionally garunteed.

The laws are not "ripe for abuse", moreso than any others. In the past, no attempt was made to institute a reasonable poll tax or testing policy. The general concepts themselves, as specified in the Voting Rights Act, are not "ripe for abuse".

By your logic, taxes should be illegal, because in certain times and places in human history, the population has been taxed into poverty.

Quote by: lsbskins1 If it is your contention that no law that is federal is just, I think you will lose 99 % of your "audience". If you are contending that greater harm is caused by the law than is alleviated by the law, I believe you have failed to make a compelling case.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The laws are not "ripe for abuse", moreso than any others. In the past, no attempt was made to institute a reasonable poll tax or testing policy.

Your attempt to discredit equality is weak.
No one needs to pay a poll tax, assuming one can be deemed "reasonable" to begin with. And no one needs a literacy policy to vote. I would turn to your ideal system only as a demonstration of what a political system shouldn't be.

Grandpa h.