Posted on 06/25/2013 12:13:15 PM PDT by cotton1706
The Constitution and laws of the United States are “the supreme Law of the Land.” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. State legislation may not contravene federal law. The Federal Government does not, however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments before they gointo effect. A proposal to grant such authority to “negative” state laws was considered at the Constitutional Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws totake effect, subject to later challenge under the SupremacyClause. See 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 21, 164–168 (M. Farrand ed. 1911); 2 id., at 27–29, 390–392. Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, Statesretain broad autonomy in structuring their governmentsand pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10. This “allocation of powers in our federal systempreserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereigntyof the States.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S.
But the federal balance “is not justan end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). More specifically, “‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462 (1991) (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 647 (1973); someinternal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; see also Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., ante, at 4–6. But States have “broad powers to determine the conditions under whichthe right of suffrage may be exercised.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965) (internal quotation marksomitted); see also Arizona, ante, at 13–15. And “[e]achState has the power to prescribe the qualifications of itsofficers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.” Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, 161 (1892). Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Perry v. Perez, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3)(internal quotation marks omitted). Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equalsovereignty” among the States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960); Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725–726 (1869); emphasisadded). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal inpower, dignity and authority.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 567 (1911). Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 11 Opinion of the Court States is essential to the harmonious operation of thescheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Id., at 580. Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U. S., at 328–329. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U. S., at 203. The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basicprinciples. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise havethe right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a §2 action.
They actually went back and looked at the intent of the Constitutional Convention?
No wonder Obama and Holder are p*ssed.
Indeed. There was probably quite a gnashing of teeth as they read the decision.
I think it is a well-deserved death blow to the Department of in-Justice’s ability cram specious black voter concerns down our collective throats.
Blacks have a black president now; there are no fountains or lunch counters any more. Claims by blacks about voter intimidation are most times just outright lies taken from the white-guilt playbook to “keep the scheme alive.”
We all know where intimidation, cheating and coercion is going. The Supreme Court finally just had to admit it.
The same article without all the references:
The Constitution and laws of the United States are “the supreme Law of the Land.” State legislation may not contravene federal law. The Federal Government does not, however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments before they go into effect. A proposal to grant such authority to “negative” state laws was considered at the Constitutional Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to take effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy Clause. Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. This “allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.”
But the federal balance “is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” More specifically, “‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. But States have “broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” And “each State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.” Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority.” Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been pre-cleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a §2 action.
whites are intimidated in Philly.
Maybe this will lessen voter fraud in some states.
The affirmative action non decision and the voiding of an outdated voting law are just a few bones thrown to distract. The big decision of course will be when the Supreme Court throws out the vote of the US Congress and a duly passed referendum by the voters of California. They once again will erode the social consensus that once existed in the United States, promote decadence and legalize homosexual marriage. The Supreme Court has misused its assumed power and harmed the United States.
and Eric Holder won’t prosecute ‘his’ people for any of it.
The above statement is misleading imo. It ignores that only those federal laws reasonably based on the limited powers delegated to the federal government by the states via the Constitution, such powers evidenced by Section 8 of Article I, can trump state laws.
They killed the country when they ruled the govt is our sovereign and can make us buy, or do, whatever it wants. obamacare was the nail in the heart, what follows is the catalyst for how quick our decline will be.
Makes sense to me.
We - the Voters - do not vote for any elective Federal position. All Federal positions are Appointed by or with the concurrence of the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches.
We - the Voters - only vote for our respective State Representatives, Senators, or State Members to the Electoral College.
Also - Voting is not a Right. It is a Privilege granted by your State as a result of your Citizenship Residence within your State.
“State legislation may not contravene federal law”
bullsheet
states have rights, the central government has a few enumerated powers, the states are more powerful and they better start acting like it and not cede their sovereignty to the twisted central government
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.