The whole Voting Rights Act of 1964? I am certain there are lots of pundits trying to justify racism. That really isn’t the argument to prove the racism though.
There once were carriages that horses pulled before there were horseless carriages.
(Click here)
The laws regulating horse drawn carriages are still on the books, right? There are only a few instances where they still apply. The Amish use their horse drawn carriages. Now a days they use signal lights so they are easier to see. In cities like New York the rules and regs would still apply because of the tourist businesses that still apply. So, while the laws are mostly obsolete, there are still instances where they are important.
The United States of America is a highly dynamic country. The freedoms of the First Amendment alone bring about a lot of tolerance to difference. The Freedom of Speech alone is vital to the democracy we all love and pledge allegiance.
None of those foundation documents are obsolete except to people who see authoritarianism as a real answer to taxes and the ever increasing diversity of the people of the USA.
The Voting Rights Act of 1964 is being actively dismantled. That is a hostile act.
When laws go into effect there is a good chance as time goes by they become obsolete. Laws becoming obsolete don’t have to be dismantled and in most instances are simply a part of history. It is a really fun and is funny to look at laws as they were 100 years ago and realize how far we have come, including child labor laws and the laws that set up the public education system. Where would we be as a sovereign country without public education?
The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was necessary at the time it passed into law. The Roberts Court would like Americans to believe it is obsolete and therefore has to be examined for updated high court remedies. That is corruption. High handed corruption.
If the Voting Rights of 1964 were obsolete there would be no need to litigate anything because it would mean the law worked and equality and respect for voting was achieved. If the law became obsolete it simply would not be used anymore. So, in Shelby vs. Holder they wanted the law watered down so they could conduct elections as they wanted. That’s the truth.
Shelby didn’t thank the founders of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 for seeing where correction needed to be made and bringing about equality. No. There was no thank you. My guess is there is too much hate to even recognize why the law was necessary in the first place.
If a Supreme Court decides in majority a law is obsolete and rightfully should be dismantled, what is next? The Constitution itself?
