We Need the Voting Rights Act

We Need the Voting Rights Act

There are 4 comments on the Real Clear Politics story from Mar 7, 2013, titled We Need the Voting Rights Act. In it, Real Clear Politics reports that:

Tear gas fumes fill the air as state troopers break up a demonstration march in Selma, Ala., on what is known as Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Real Clear Politics.

Ajay Jain

Garland, TX

#1 Mar 8, 2013
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights.

We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act (VRA), it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last year's voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again.

If properly educated and aroused to stand up against Supreme Court activism from the bench the entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's Justice Scalia's attack on VRA as " racial entitlements" will not stand the test of time. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Voting Rights ACT it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, its Justices, can be challenged in public. Supreme Court Justices, get up and do your job or we will make it happen! Count on it!

Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights act on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women (Billionaires) in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they want in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls as proven in the 2012 election. They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially.

Commentator George Will knows this and should be ashamed of his views on VRA. He says VRA is 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to match payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled by the right wing opposition and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!

The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we've seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.

It is urgent that whoever can go to the Supreme Court and organize peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience protests in front of the Supreme Court ASAP to do so right away!
George Wallace

Lees Summit, MO

#2 Mar 9, 2013
Yawn!!!
Cecil Williamson

United States

#3 Mar 21, 2013
Are you saying that in a city such as Selma, Alabama, with a black mayor, an 80% black population and black majority city council that laws passed by this council in this city need to be reviewed in Washington? Given the situation here, do you mean that blacks will pass laws that discirminate against their own people; therefore, their actions muat be pre-cleared in Washington? That is absurb! The city council here can't move a polling place, annex a foot of land, or change one ward line without approval from Washington as if a black city governmentg will discriminate against its own people. Only a ignorant person would think a black city government would discriminate against its own people and try to keep them from voting. Section 5 for Selma needs to go.
Dan Presley

Montgomery, AL

#4 Mar 21, 2013
Well said Dr. Cecil. I agree with you 100%.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autaugaville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hit and Run accident at Prattville High School,... Jul 27 mohawkhb 1
Prattville Music Thread (Dec '14) Jul 24 Musikologist 3
News Marion added to Selma to Montgomery National Hi... Jul 21 stanpan76 1
News Limestone County convicted rapist re-sentenced ... (Dec '13) Jul 18 Yeah 4
News Racial equality a long way off, NAACP says Jul 16 PATRIOT DVC MOLON... 23
News Congress struggles with Confederacy's past Jul 11 goonsquad 3
State Trooper in Infamous Civil Rights Slaying Jul 9 Daniel 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Autaugaville Mortgages