Shelby County V. Holder's Argumentative Analysis

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

The outcome of Shelby County v. Holder, a Supreme Court Case in which a district in Alabama appealed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has resulted in the United States becoming a less democratic state (oyez.com). Democracies are defined as governments that reflect the will of its people, which can be achieved by allowing citizens a voice to express themselves in society. Most democracies are attained by giving each citizen an equal vote (ushistory.org). After the ruling of Shelby County, various states throughout United States, especially in the south, have now had more influence upon creating voting requirements. The ruling of the case has made the United States less democratic as it has influenced many states to narrow their electorate, making it harder for everyone to vote and contribute to society.

The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth.

On august, 6, 1965 President Lyndon Johnson signed a law that made it easier for African Americans to vote in the US elections. Up until that time, some community’s attempted to discriminate against black people and members of other minority group. They required voters to take written tests or pay special taxes four the write to vote The Voting Rights Act of 1965 put an end to voter discrimination.

To accomplish social equality and justice has been a long controversial issue in U.S. history. Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be understood as a tremendous accomplishment today because it not only represent a symbol of the triumph of fighting social injustice, but also open the first gate for African American and minority to strive for more political power in order to create a “great society.”

Martha Griffiths a lawyer once said, “This amendment [the Equal Rights Amendment], if passed, would be like a beacon which should awaken nine sleeping Rip Van Winkle 's to the fact that the twentieth century is passing into history.” A summary of the twenty-fourth amendment is banning poll taxes. That means that in the 1800’s to 1900’s they used to make you pay to vote for a President or a Vice President. This amendment was important to our country. Therefore, the 24th Amendment is an important amendment, there are pros and cons to this amendment, and is positive and negative.

The movie “Loving” is based on a true story, and it depicts the lives of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, living in Virginia. In 1958, the couple went to Washington D.C and got married. They married here for the reason that interracial marriage was banned in Virginia. Yet, when they got back home, they were arrested. They spent the expanse of nine years struggling for their right to live as family in their town. Their civil rights case, Loving versus Virginia, went to the Supreme Court, and it ultimately marked a monumental time in American history. For the first time, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down.

The Voting Rights Act was one of the most revolutionary bills ever passed by the congressional legislation in the United States. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law on August 6th, 1965, not only as part of politics but also, a depiction of morals. Since 1965, it has protected minority voters at the polls, but it has been fifty years since the Voting Rights Act has been passed and it is still a controversial topic that is constantly debated on today. The voting rights of all minorities throughout the country are once again under attack which impacts one’s ability to exercise his or her constitutional right as a citizen.

The fifteen amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit the federal and state government from denying the citizens the right to vote, based on that citizen’s race, color or previous condition of servitude. The fifteen Amendments finally gave the African American the right to vote, but also allowed them to be able to elect into public office. Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promises if the 15 amendment would not fully realized for almost a century, thought the used of poll taxes, literacy test and other means. Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African American. Current controversies over the right to vote can be divided into two types of claims. The first involves the ability to get to the ballot box and cast a vote: these are

People always want to demand their essential rights from government’s restriction by passing new laws. There was a period when people demanded their rights in the 1900s. Within the United States, most African Americans’ rights were denied by state governments. Hence, in the 1960s, they took a stand on requiring their rights through the Civil Rights movement around the country. During this movement, the Voting Rights Act was significant and for the reason is that this act gave African Americans a chance to participate in US politics by their votes. Even though the government adopted the Voting Rights Act in 1965, African Americans’ suffrages were still restricted because of southern states’ obstructions.

Sources: Remembering Scottsboro: The legacy of an infamous trial, The Trials of the Scottsboro boys, and Scottsboro and its legacy: The cases that challenged american legal and social justice.

Everyone has the right to vote, but many don’t take that opportunity. In the article “Should Voting Be Mandatory?” Eric Liu tells us that “mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices;” people usually never pay attention to their choices, and then complain about it later when everything has already happened. (Par 5). Mandatory voting means that every citizen of the age of 18 and above that has a right to vote must vote. The thing that confuses me the most is that the people from The Civil Rights Movement fought so hard for equal voting rights, but the modern American citizens’ still don’t try to vote even though now all the citizens’ can vote. If we are given a right that people died for, then we should take a stand and vote, so that elections can be fair. Americans’ should vote to voice their opinion on important matter to move the country forward. Voting have to be mandatory for all citizen.

Originally the Florida Supreme Court ordered that a recount was to happen in Palm Beach, Volusia, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties. Bush used the Equal Protection Clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to argue Florida’s ruling. Bush won in the Federal Supreme Court and established that the recount was unconstitutional because it was giving more protection to these county’s ballots than others. The vote to was so close that the decision was essentially made by one person. This shows that the supreme court didn’t vote in what they believed in and rather wanted to help out their own party. If even one of the Federal Supreme Court Justices would have voted for what they actually believed in, then the outcome of the election could have been very

In June 21, 1973, Miller was convicted on the ground of advertising the sale of what was considered by the court as adult material. He was found guilty as he broke the California Statute. The California Statute forbids citizens from spreading what is considered offensive in societal standards. The question that was being asked was that if the action of Miller was Constitution thus is protected under the law. However, he lost the case due to a vote of 5 - 4. The court noted that the material that Miller distributed by Miller was not protected under the first Amendment. The court said that the materials Miller distributed were offensive to people, therefore violates the California Statute. (“Miller v. California.")This is a similar argument that is used

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. Because of this decision, Section 5 was no longer enforceable, allowing states to pass