Skip to comments.Schneiderman v. New York
Posted on 03/07/2013 6:58:37 PM PST by neverdem
One question hovering over the voting rights case now before the Supreme Court is whether there should have been a special counsel appointed to represent New York. The case involves the question of whether...
It used the power when, in 1965, it enacted what is, in the Voting Rights Act, one of the most glorious laws ever entered into the United States Code. It admitted African Americans to the political process and spelled the end of the Jim Crow era.
Section 5 of the law, however, has been much fought over. It deals with certain states or jurisdictions that the federal government doesnt trust to make on their own workaday changes to election procedures. Under Section 5, all or part of 16 states have to get pre-clearance from the federal government to change their election process. The parts of New York that are covered are mainly the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn...
There were a number of points New Yorkers took the trouble to mark.* One was that every power and jurisdiction not clearly delegated to the Congress would remain with the people or their state governments. Eventually, that became the last article of the Bill of Rights. Yet even though the point was so important to New York that a special note about it was issued by the states ratifying convention, neither Attorney General Schneiderman nor Mr. Cardozo gave it so much as a how-do-you-do in their filing in the voting rights case...
Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor all three of them New Yorkers put up a rip-roaring defense of the Congress. Yet its also possible the court will strike down Section Five...
* Among the points marked as particularly important to New York was the right to keep arms and carry them around.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Famously, Senator Barry Goldwater, the party's nominee in 1964, stood strongly against Section 5 and voted against the entire Voting Rights Act because of it.
His contention was that a.) the section was unconstitutional because it applied different standards to the various states and b.) if it should be applied anywhere, it should be applied everywhere.
And...he was right.
Still, the Democrat party and the media tarred him as a racist. And...it stuck.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list
Thanks for the ping!
Racism must be a principled belief system, because whenever you do anything principled, they say you’re being racist.