Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case.
According to Voter Institute, Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than to fall victim to voter fraud. However, states consistently cite this problem to justify strict voter identification laws, a popular form of voter discrimination today. It is for this reason that the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to prevent the disenfranchisement of minority voters. However, in June 2013, the Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, deemed Section 4(b) of the act, the list of states subjected to preclearance, unconstitutional. Critics argue that the Section 4 states no longer displayed the same amount of blatant discrimination compared to the past rates which had warranted the burdens of preclearance.
The thirteenth amendment in the Declaration of Independence ended slavery and the fourteenth Amendment ended slavery in essence. These legislations are set in place however racism is a reoccurring theme in America especially in recent months with President Trump in power. President Trump has a number of motions in place to prohibit individuals from certain races access into America. In situations similar to this it can be difficult for the state to ban racist advertisements when the president holds a huge amount of power. Trump has encouraged mainly his supporters to act out vocally and physically which is becoming increasingly concerning.
He maintained that affirmative action policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which says that all citizens should have an equal protection of law. However, the court ruled out that the affirmative action policy is constitutional and can be used as a one of many factors in admissions processes. However, it should not be zero-sum, where the increased opportunities for the minorities come at the expense of the majority groups ( Brunner and Rowen
Thus causing even more conflict, especially amongst those not in the South. Another controversial issue was federalism because Marshall gave the national government a vast amount of power over state 's rights, and Taney believed more in giving power to the state rather than the national government. In addition, this is when outside groups started forming and lobbying their influence over government decisions, whether it is pertaining to slavery, rights, or economic interests. James Madison regarded “factions” or interest groups with concern when authoring segments of the Federalist Papers. The problem he envisioned was that eliminating them from the political scene was a threat to democratic principles, a cure worse than the disease.
In my paper, I will analyse Donald Trump’s political activities before and after the election to get an objective viewpoint of America’s President. We’ll start off with the history of Trump, both personal and political, to see whether there was some sort of significant development over the years indicating a tendency towards ‘good or evil’. Next, we will take a look at what Donald Trump promised to do – the wall, lowering taxes and repealing Obamacare to name a few – and evaluate if he managed to keep his election pledges. This success rate is a major factor in definitively assessing Trump’s influence on America. Lastly, using three major topics, we’ll gage how the President handled new events in the country, regarding the measures he took to counteract threats and his public statements which indicate if things important to the public are also important to Trump.
Texas promptly passed its current voter ID law and Texas is being sued by the US Justice Department under the remaining provisions, Section 2, of The Voting Rights Act to stop the new voter identification system. Senate Bill 14 is very controversial today, but to me it seems normal. As a Colombian having an ID for any kind of election is second
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t and they have to learn not to hurt those who support Clinton.
They ruled that the 1st amendment did not guarantee ultimate freedom of speech and anyone violating the government could be overthrown by the state. The historical impact that the case was made mostly from Justice Brandeis, who stated that immediate serious and evil threats should be the only ones that are taken seriously enough to strip away someone’s granted rights. Brandeis’s opinion was put to use in 1969 when the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which is when the court overruled the decision. Yes, there are laws to help protect the natural-born citizens of this country, but if they can be taken and maneuvered to make sure the courts get what they want, why have
The electoral college is a process the founding fathers established in the constitution with the intent to create a safeguard between the population and the selection of a president, and to give extra power to smaller states. However, based on the information presented in the articles the electoral college should be abolished as it violates our right of political equality, and fails to represent a third, independent, party in any election. Although there are many reasons to abolish the electoral college, the principal reason to take action would be the result of an obvious violation of our right to be politically equal. As shown in the chart provided (Doc D) 12 of the lowest populated states and the District of Columbia have almost the
The article, “The Antifederalists Were Right”, Mises Daily, September 27, 2006 by Gary Galles examines Anti-Federalists’ predictions and if we don’t limit of the federal government it will lead to corruption of power. The Anti-Federalist believed that ratifying the U.S Constitution will create an overbearing central government. Even though the Anti-Federalist lost the debate and was overlooked, their predictions about the result of the Constitution turned out the be true. The Anti-Federalist suggested the Bill of Rights to let the people have rights, however the Constitution was too vague which leads to abuse of power. Some of the vague laws are the “general welfare” which lead to the override limits on delegated federal powers and creating
The first thing that I optate to commence with is explaining this act filibuster. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the act of filibuster is, “an effort to prevent action in a legislature (such as the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives) by making a long speech or series of speeches” (Webster). They are parliamentary methodology intended to permit any political gatherings or gatherings of lawmakers that don 't have the ability to win in an altogether greater part, to all things considered block enactment they find questionable. As I would like to think this is an entirely erudite postponing strategy. In any case, I trust that such a demonstration of filibustering ought to be abrogated If we take a look back in history, we see that
Other forms of disfranchisement, including the disfranchisement of criminals, remain controversial. Since the early 1990s, all but three states prohibited imprisoned offenders from voting. Thirty-five states disfranchise offenders on probation or parole, and fourteen disfranchise ex-offenders for life. Because a disproportionate share of convicted criminals are non-white, some have argued that such laws constitute a racially discriminatory voting barrier that is as pernicious as poll taxes and literacy tests. Many state criminal disfranchisement laws date back to the Reconstruction era, and such laws were often targeted at offenses for which African Americans were disproportionately convicted.
The Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln 's plan, as they thought it too lenient toward the South. Radical Republicans believed that Lincoln 's plan for Reconstruction was not harsh enough because, from their point of view, the South was guilty of starting the war and the South deserved to be punished for starting the war. Radical Republicans hoped to control the Reconstruction process, transform southern society, disband the planter aristocracy, redistribute land, develop industry, and guarantee civil liberties for former slaves. Although the Radical Republicans were the minority party in Congress, they managed to sway many moderates in the postwar years and came to dominate Congress in later sessions. In the summer of 1864, the Radical Republicans passed a new bill to counter the plan, known as the Wade–Davis Bill.