May 27, 2013
A pair of Democratic congressmen (click here) is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states....
THE VOTE is the backbone of our democracy.
Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states.
The words Public Trust is right there in the US Constitution. The Public Trust is mandated in the USA.
The US Constitution is an interesting document, however, as time moves on there needs to be amendments to pick up the slack since the 13 original colonies when slavery was an economic engine.
We have since then fought a war, "The Civil War," to end hatred of difference based on oppression of a specific populous of human beings among us. There is every indication slavery was a point of irritation from the beginning of the democracy, but, balloting then was very different.
Today, the USA populous is basically well educated when compared on a global basis. Most Americans understand their government and their rights, especially voting rights.
A funny thing about the decision today by the Robert's Court, it takes a huge leap backwards rather than moving the country forward.
The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was passed during some of the most turbulent times in the USA since the Civil War. It was important for the country to end the hatred and manipulation. American elections are suppose to be the one place citizens have their strongest voice. So, the Voting Rights Act was important. Very.
Moving backwards is a bad habit of the Republican fervor among those that practice those priorities. They always want to roll back laws rather than realizing the importance of them.
What I find really odd about this decision is the LACK OF APPRECIATION of voting right law's effectiveness. While 1964 is nearly five decades ago, the law never lost it's purposefulness. At some point in time a thinking Justice has to stop hanging on to the past and realize that if a law has had a purpose in Americans elections for nearly 50 years there is something basically missing in the USA Constitution, which brings me to this amendment proposal.
Realizing the States are allowed to make their own rules according to the USA Constitution with the overriding premise of "Public Trust," the states might be the best testing ground for the composition of this Amendment. There are states that uphold the integrity of elections and there are states that seek to control power and undermine the integrity of elections.
I would think there would be Governors in states with good civil rights histories that would be happy to carry out laws to uphold The Voting Rights Law of 1964 as an amendment to their state constitutions. With that is the realization there would be acceptance for ratification for the Amendment. I think we need 26 states to ratify an Amendment to the USA Constitution. I would think that would be doable.
Until then Congress needs to write the formula for the Pre-clearance and soon. There are elections coming up that need clear parameters to carry out their elections.
A pair of Democratic congressmen (click here) is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states....
THE VOTE is the backbone of our democracy.
Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states.
The words Public Trust is right there in the US Constitution. The Public Trust is mandated in the USA.
The US Constitution is an interesting document, however, as time moves on there needs to be amendments to pick up the slack since the 13 original colonies when slavery was an economic engine.
We have since then fought a war, "The Civil War," to end hatred of difference based on oppression of a specific populous of human beings among us. There is every indication slavery was a point of irritation from the beginning of the democracy, but, balloting then was very different.
Today, the USA populous is basically well educated when compared on a global basis. Most Americans understand their government and their rights, especially voting rights.
A funny thing about the decision today by the Robert's Court, it takes a huge leap backwards rather than moving the country forward.
The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was passed during some of the most turbulent times in the USA since the Civil War. It was important for the country to end the hatred and manipulation. American elections are suppose to be the one place citizens have their strongest voice. So, the Voting Rights Act was important. Very.
Moving backwards is a bad habit of the Republican fervor among those that practice those priorities. They always want to roll back laws rather than realizing the importance of them.
What I find really odd about this decision is the LACK OF APPRECIATION of voting right law's effectiveness. While 1964 is nearly five decades ago, the law never lost it's purposefulness. At some point in time a thinking Justice has to stop hanging on to the past and realize that if a law has had a purpose in Americans elections for nearly 50 years there is something basically missing in the USA Constitution, which brings me to this amendment proposal.
Realizing the States are allowed to make their own rules according to the USA Constitution with the overriding premise of "Public Trust," the states might be the best testing ground for the composition of this Amendment. There are states that uphold the integrity of elections and there are states that seek to control power and undermine the integrity of elections.
I would think there would be Governors in states with good civil rights histories that would be happy to carry out laws to uphold The Voting Rights Law of 1964 as an amendment to their state constitutions. With that is the realization there would be acceptance for ratification for the Amendment. I think we need 26 states to ratify an Amendment to the USA Constitution. I would think that would be doable.
Until then Congress needs to write the formula for the Pre-clearance and soon. There are elections coming up that need clear parameters to carry out their elections.
