Conservative Court Calls Congress Cowards: Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 4 (b) and Its formula for Requiring Preclearance Struck Down as Unconstitutional –Videos

Posted on June 26, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

supreme_cour_strikes_down_part_voting_right_act

supreme_court_decision_section_4_voting_rights_act

Supreme-Court-file-jpg

supreme-court-1024x601

The Band – Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Judge Napolitano ~ Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law

Voting Rights Act Takes Hit by Supreme Court – 6/25/2013

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act, weakening a tool the federal government has used for nearly five decades to block discriminatory voting laws.

In a five-to-four ruling, the court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. That section of the landmark 1965 law provides the formula for determining which states must have any changes to their voting laws pre-approved by the Justice Department’s civil rights division or the D.C. federal court. Nine states are required to get pre-clearance, as are certain jurisdictions in seven other states.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that Section 4 is unconstitutional because the standards by which states are judged are “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices.”

“Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically,” Roberts wrote. “The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased [Section 5’s] restrictions or narrowed the scope of [Section 4’s] coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger.”

The court could have made a much broader ruling by striking down Section 5, which dictates that those states must get pre-clearance. However, the court decided that the Justice Department still has a role in overseeing voting laws.

Nevertheless, civil rights advocates called the ruling a huge blow to democracy.

“The Supreme Court has failed minority voters today,” Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund said Tuesday outside of the court.

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s lawmaking powers, challenging Congress’ overwhelmingly bipartisan decision in 2006 to renew the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. Ifill pointed out that the court renewed the law after holding 52 hearings over nine months and amassing 15,000 pages of evidence of discrimination — including more than 600 objections to voting based on intentional discrimination in the jurisdictions covered by Section 4.

It’s now up to Congress to change the coverage rules so that Section 5 — the section requiring pre-clearance of voting laws in certain states — can continue to be enforced.

“The ball has been thrown not only in Congress’ court, but in our court,” Ifill said, calling on the public to mobilize behind an update to the law.

CLASH Sean Hannity, Juan Williams, Erik Rush over Congress fixing Voting Rights Act

Howard Fineman: Voting Rights ‘Preclearance Is Dead Unless Congress Acts Soon’

The Huffington Post Editorial Director Howard Fineman delivered a grim prognosis relating to the sustainability of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after the Supreme Court struck from the law provisions relating to the regions of the United States which must submit reapportionment proposals to the Justice Department for preclearance. “Preclearance is dead,” Fineman said, “unless Congress acts soon.”

NBC News reporter Luke Russert began by asking Fineman how today’s ruling on the VRA impacts Democratic plans to expand into traditionally Republican states in the Deep South and Southwest.

“I think a lot is going to depend on how we come to look at discrimination and voting now,” Fineman began. “I think the way to approach this is for the Democrats to say, ‘Look, let’s move forward here.'”

RELATED: If GOP Approaches New Voting Rights Act Like They Did Immigration Reform, The Party Is Doomed

“This is an opportunity to renew for the next century the spirit of the Civil Rights Acts of the ’60s,” Fineman continued. “At the very least, what they’re going to have to do, is raise a whole lot of money for a whole lot of lawsuits all over the country.”

“I think preclearance is dead unless Congress acts soon,” he concluded. “And that’s going to mean you’re going to have to have vigilant people filing lawsuits all over the country, seeking injunctions after the fact trying to make sure the voting procedures are just.”

BREAKING NEWS Supreme Court Throws Out Voting Rights Provision

The divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out a core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, rolling back a landmark law that opened the polls to millions of southern blacks. The justices, voting 5-4, struck down the law’s formula for determining which states must get federal approval before changing their election rules. The ruling all but invalidates the section preclearance requirement, leaving it without force unless Congress can enact a new method for determining which jurisdictions are covered.

Part of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

The Five Clash w/ Beckel on Voting Rights: Supreme Court Has Gutted Civil Rights And It’s Just Wrong

Al Sharpton: The Supreme Court ‘Just Cancelled The Dream’ Of MLK Jr. In Voting Rights Decision

Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down By Supreme Court ~ 6. 25. 2013

Scalia: ‘Racial Entitlement’ in Voting Rights Act

SCOTUS Conservatives Signal Intention To Dismantle Voting Rights Act

Supreme Courts Rules Struck Down Of Voting Rights Act

Joan Baez – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[2][4]

The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called “covered jurisdictions”) could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance.[5] These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a “device” to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964.[5] The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.[6]

The Act is widely considered a landmark in civil-rights legislation,[7] though some of its provisions have sparked political controversy. During the debate over the 2006 extension, some Republican members of Congress objected to renewing the preclearance requirement (the Act’s primary enforcement provision), arguing that it represents an overreach of federal power and places unwarranted bureaucratic demands on Southern states that have long since abandoned the discriminatory practices the Act was meant to eradicate.[8] Conservative legislators also opposed requiring states with large Spanish-speaking populations to provide bilingual ballots.[9] Congress nonetheless voted to extend the Act for twenty-five years with its original enforcement provisions left intact.[10]

In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act and its formula for requiring preclearance as unconstitutional based on current conditions, saying it was rational and needed at the time it was enacted but is no longer necessary. Preclearance itself was not struck down, but it currently has no effect unless or until Congress passes a new formula.[11]

Background

The first page of the Voting Rights Act

Further information: Disfranchisement after the Civil War

The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865 after the Civil War, abolished and prohibited slavery and secured a minimal degree of citizenship to former slaves. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” and included the due process and equal protection clauses. This amendment did not explicitly prohibit vote discrimination on racial grounds.

The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, provided that, “The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”.[12] Additionally under the Amendment, the Congress was given the authority to enforce those rights and regulate the voting process. Soon after the end of Reconstruction, starting in the 1870s, Southern Democratic legislators found other means to deny the vote to blacks, through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow laws. From 1890 to 1908, 10 Southern states wrote new constitutions with provisions that included literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that permitted otherwise disqualified voters whose grandfathers voted (thus allowing some white illiterates to vote), some with the aim and effect of re-imposing racially motivated restrictions on the voting process that disenfranchised blacks. State provisions applied to all voters and were upheld by the Supreme Court in early litigation, from 1875 (United States v. Cruikshank) through 1904. During the early 20th century, the Supreme Court began to find such provisions unconstitutional in litigation of cases brought by African Americans and poor whites. States reacted rapidly in devising new legislation to continue disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. Although there were numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court, through the 1960s, Southern states effectively disfranchised most blacks.

In 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was created with the mission to promote blacks’ civil rights, including to “secure for them impartial suffrage.” The NAACP’s success was limited: although they did achieve important judicial rulings by the Supreme Court and some legislative successes, Southern legislators quickly devised alternate ways to keep many southern blacks disfranchised through the early 1960s.

Following the 1964 election, a variety of civil rights organizations banded together to push for the passage of legislation that would ensure black voting rights once and for all. The campaign to bring about federal intervention to prevent discrimination in voting culminated in the voting rights protests in Selma, Alabama, and the famous Selma to Montgomery marches. Demonstrations also brought out white violence, and Jimmie Lee Jackson, James Reeb, and Viola Liuzzo were murdered. President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a dramatic joint-session address, called upon Congress to enact a strong voting rights bill. Johnson’s administration drafted a bill intended to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, aiming to eliminate various previously legal strategies to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting.

Legislative history

The Act was sent to Congress by President Johnson on March 17, 1965. The bill passed the Senate on May 26, 1965 (after a successful cloture vote on March 23), by a vote of seventy-seven to nineteen. The House was slower to give its approval. After five weeks of debate, it was finally passed on July 9. After differences between the two bills were resolved in conference, the House passed the Conference Report on August 3, the Senate on August 4. On August 6, President Johnson signed the Act into law with Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and other civil rights leaders in attendance.

Vote count

President Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965.

The two numbers in each line of this list refer to the number of representatives voting in favor and against the act, respectively.

Senate: 77–19

  • Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
  • Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85

  • Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
  • Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

Conference Report:

Senate: 79–18

  • Democrats: 49–17 (four Southern Democrats voted in favor: Albert Gore, Sr., Ross Bass, George Smathers and Ralph Yarborough).
  • Republicans: 30–1 (the lone nay was Strom Thurmond; John Tower who did not vote was paired as a nay vote with Eugene McCarthy who would have voted in favor.)

House: 328–74

  • Democrats: 217–54
  • Republicans: 111–20

Provisions

Section 2

Final page of the Voting Rights Act, signed by President Johnson, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House

Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes are equally accessible to minority voters.[13] This section is permanent and does not require renewal.

On March 9, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bartlett v. Strickland that the Voting Rights Act does not require governments to draw district lines favorable to minority candidates when the district has minorities as less than half of the population.[14]

Section 4

The central component to Section 4 of the Act is a formula for determining which jurisdictions will be subject to the preclearance conditions of Section 5. As originally enacted, the first portion of the formula was whether, as of November 1, 1964, the jurisdiction used some form of “test or device” to restrict the opportunity to register and vote (such as a literacy test or a character reference). The second portion was a check of whether less than half of all eligible citizens were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that half of all eligible citizens voted in the presidential election of November 1964.[15]

Subsequent revisions of the law moved the date where both portions of the formula were gauged ahead to be as of November 1, 1968 and, later, as of November 1, 1972. Revisions in 1982 and 2006 extended the protections of the law but did not change the nature of the formula itself.

Smaller components of Section 4 include protections for voters with limited English skills to ensure they are able to register and vote as well as receive materials on the electoral process in a language which they will understand.[16]

In a decision on the Shelby County v. Holder case released on June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Section 4(b) unconstitutional.[17]

Section 5

Preclearance

Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action “preclear” any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting…” in any “covered jurisdiction.”[5] The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Preclearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a “language minority group.” Membership in a language minority group includes “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.[18]

Covered jurisdictions may not implement voting changes without federal preclearance. The Justice Department has 60 days to respond to a request for a voting change. If the Justice Department or federal court rejects a request for Preclearance, the jurisdiction may continue the prior voting practice or may adopt a substitute and seek Preclearance for it. If the jurisdiction implements a voting change before the Justice Department denies Preclearance in contravention of the Act, the jurisdiction must return to the pre-existing practice or enact a different change.

Those states that had less than 50 percent of the voting age population registered to vote in 1960 and/or 1964 were covered in the original act. In addition, some counties and towns that have been found in violation of section 2 have been added. Some cities and counties in Virginia and New Hampshire (see below) have since been found no longer to need Preclearance.

In 2006, the United States Commission on Civil Rights reviewed the Justice Department Preclearance record and found that the percentage of DOJ objections to submitted changes has declined markedly throughout the 40-year period of the Act: from 5.5 percent in the first period to 1.2 percent in the second, and to 0.6 percent in the third. Over the 10 years prior to the review, the overall objection rate was so low as to be practically negligible, at less than 0.1 percent.[19] The Commission’s two Democratic members dissented from the report, charging that the Commission had “abandon[ed] the field of battle.”[20]

In the case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the district should have greater capability of applying for exemption from this section.[21]

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court case of Shelby County v. Holder held that the preclearance coverage formula in Section 4(b) was unconstitutional. Without a valid coverage formula, no jurisdiction is currently required to have any of their voting changes precleared under Section 5.[22]

Bail out

The term “bail out” refers to the process by which covered jurisdictions may seek exemption from Section 5 coverage.[23] In order to bail out, a covered jurisdiction needs to obtain a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.[5] Eighteen Virginia jurisdictions not covered by Section 5 Preclearance requirements have successfully “bailed out.”[23]

Before August 1984, this process required covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that the voting test that they used immediately before coverage was not used in a discriminatory fashion. The 1982 amendment included two significant changes.[23] First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, individual counties in that state may separately bail out. Second, Congress completely redesigned the bailout standard. The post-1984 bailout standard requires that a covered jurisdiction demonstrate nondiscriminatory behavior during the 10 years prior to filing and while the action is pending and that it has taken affirmative steps to improve minority voting opportunities.[23][24]

On September 22, 2010, the first two jurisdictions outside the state of Virginia—Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and Sandy Springs, Georgia—successfully “bailed out” from Section 5 Preclearance requirements.[25] On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire sued to “bail out” from the requirements, which were originally imposed on ten towns that used a literacy test and had voting disparities when the Act was passed,[26] and prevailed on March 1, 2013.[27]

Bail in

Similar to the bail out procedure, under Section 3 of the VRA there is a “bail in” or ‘pocket trigger’ process by which uncovered jurisdictions found to be a ‘pocket’ of discrimination may be required to seek preclearance under 42 USC 1973a(c).[28] The statutory language is similar to Section 5 oversight but the period of coverage is based on a ruling or consent decree issued by a federal judge. Not used prior to 1975, Section 3 has bailed in the following: [29]

States
  • Arkansas
  • New Mexico
Counties
  • California: Los Angeles
  • Florida: Escambia
  • Nebraska: Thurston
  • New Mexico: Bernalillo
  • South Dakota: Buffalo
  • South Dakota: Charles Mix
Townships
  • Tennessee: Chattanooga

These covered districts are not counted in the Section 5 covered areas below and are not affected by the 2013 Supreme Court decision invalidating the formula in Section 4 for jurisdictions requiring Section 5 preclearance.

Jurisdictions formerly covered

States and counties requiring preclearance under Section 5 of the VRA as of January, 2008. Several small jurisdictions have since bailed out,[30] but the majority of the map remains accurate

The jurisdictions listed below had to have their voting changes precleared before the June 25, 2013, Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder that struck down the formula used to determine who was covered under Section 5 (see 28 C.F.R. part 51 appendix):[32]

States
  • Alabama, except for the city of Pinson[33]
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Georgia, except for the city of Sandy Springs
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • South Carolina
  • Texas, except for Jefferson County Drainage District Number Seven and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One
  • Virginia, except for 24 counties (Amherst, Augusta, Bedford, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Essex, Frederick, Grayson, Greene, James City, King George, Middlesex, Page, Prince William, Pulaski, Rappahanock, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Washington, Warren, and Wythe) and seven independent cities (Fairfax, Falls Church, Harrisonburg, Manassas Park, Salem, Williamsburg, and Winchester)
Counties
  • California: Kings (except for Alta Irrigation District), Monterey, Yuba (except for Browns Valley Irrigation District and the city of Wheatland)
  • Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, Monroe
  • New York: Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan)
  • North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland (except for the city of Kings Mountain), Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
  • South Dakota: Shannon, Todd
Townships
  • Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista Township

Renewal

President George W. Bush signs the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in July 2006.

Some temporary sections of the Voting Rights Act (none involving the outlawing of literacy tests, which are permanently banned)[34] have been renewed four times and remain in force. These provisions were renewed in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. In the 1982 action, Congress amended the Act to make some sections (including section 2) permanent while renewing the remainder (including section 5) for 25 years (until July 1, 2007).

In July 2006, 41 years after the Voting Rights Act passed, renewal of the temporary provisions enjoyed bi-partisan support. However, a number of Republican lawmakers acted to amend, delay or defeat renewal of the Act for various reasons. One group of lawmakers led by Georgia congressman Lynn Westmoreland came from some preclearance states, and claimed that it was no longer fair to target their states, given the passage of time since 1965 and the changes their states had made to provide fair elections and voting. Another group of 80 legislators supported an amendment offered by Steve King of Iowa, seeking to strip provisions from the Act that required that translators or multilingual ballots be provided for U.S. citizens who do not speak English.[9] The “King letter” said that providing ballots or interpreters in multiple languages is a costly, unfunded mandate.

The bill to renew the Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 13 by a vote of 390-33, with support from Republican House leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. The U.S. Senate passed the bill 98–0 on July 20.[6] President George W. Bush signed the bill in a morning ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on July 27, 2006, one year in advance of the 2007 expiration date.[6] This extension renewed the Act for another 25 years.[6] The audience included members of the families of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. Also in attendance were the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and other prominent African Americans.[6]

Criticisms

Preclearance

Some jurisdictions singled out in the Act for their practices in the 1960s are still required by law to receive federal permission for certain changes to election law or changes in venue.[35] These nine Southern states and mostly Southern counties have complained that the practices banned by the Act disappeared long ago and that further compliance with the mandates of the Act are a costly nuisance and an “unfair stigma” to their towns.[9] As an example of the federal bureaucracy involved, Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston said, “If you move a polling place from the Baptist church to the Methodist church, you’ve got to go through the Justice Department.”[9]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., said:[36]

Congress is declaring from on high that states with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven, that Georgians must eternally wear the scarlet letter because of the actions of their grandparents and great-grandparents. We have repented and we have reformed.
— Lynn Westmoreland

Some who think that this federal oversight is discriminatory to these particular states have proposed that the oversight be extended to all 50 states or eliminated entirely.[37]

The 2006 extension of the preclearance procedure was challenged in a lawsuit, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, which was argued before the Supreme Court on April 30, 2009.[38] The lawsuit was brought by a municipal water district in Texas, which elects members to a water board. The district does not register voters, nor has it been accused of discrimination. However, it wished to move the voting location from a private home to a public school; the preclearance procedure required it to seek approval from the Justice Department, because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5.[39] While the Court did not declare preclearance unconstitutional, the decision redefined the law to allow any political subdivision covered by Section 5 to request exemption from federal review.[40]

During the 2010 election cycle, the state of Florida passed two redistricting amendments to their state constitution that were aimed at preventing future attempts at gerrymandering. Then-governor Charlie Crist, a supporter of both amendments, submitted a request to the DOJ for preclearance, as required by the VRA. In early 2011, Florida’s newly-elected governor Rick Scott, a vocal opponent of these amendments, withdrew the request for preclearance, placing the legal status of the amendments in limbo.[41][42] In particular, only five of Florida’s counties are required to obtain preclearance under the Act, making it unclear what the status of these amendments is in the remaining counties. Proponents of these amendments, both of which passed with greater than 60% voter approval, are accusing Scott’s administration of attempting to “thwart the will of the voters”, by “abusing their power”, and the VRA’s preclearance clause, as a means to defeat these amendments despite overwhelming voter support.[43]

Gerrymandering

Some judges and proponents of racially drawn congressional districts have interpreted Section 5 of the Act as requiring racial gerrymandering in order to ensure minority representation.[44][45] The United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), overturned a 1992 Congressional redistricting plan that had created minority majority districts in Georgia as unconstitutional gerrymander. In Bush v. Vera, the Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, rejected Texas’s contention that Section 5 required racially-gerrymandered districts.

Constitutionality

On November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for the case of Shelby County v. Holder originating from Shelby County, Alabama, limited to the question of whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.[46][47]

Oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder were on February 27, 2013.[48] On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down, with a 5 to 4 vote, Section 4(b) of Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional while ruling that Section 5 is still permissible.[49][17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

Background Articles and Videos

Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act

Why Today Is Better Than Yesterday

By  John Yoo

Do conservatives have a lot more to be happy about today than yesterday? Yes. Today, the Supreme Court struck down the most onerous element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby County v. Holder. The Act had required several states and localities, almost all in the southern states of the confederacy, to seek permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before changing any electoral procedure. This included the drawing of electoral districts. A separate provision, still in force after Shelby, prohibits individual measures to block access to the ballot on the grounds of race.

The Act made sense in 1965, when Jim Crow still prevented blacks from registering and voting in the South. But it doesn’t anymore. One chart of voting registration by race, found on page 15 of Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion, says it all:

voter_registration_chart

I became a lawyer so I wouldn’t have to work with numbers. But even I get it. After 40 years of the Voting Rights Act, in the original Jim Crow southern states African-American voting registration is actually the same or higher than that of whites. In the last election, African-American turnout was higher than white turnout in five of these six states, and in the sixth state the gap was less than 0.5 percent.

Shelby shows that the Court — albeit by a 5-4 majority — finally came to grips with reality. The Voting Rights Act worked. But it was an extraordinary remedy that intruded on state sovereignty over elections. And like all extraordinary remedies, it was only for unusual times. Those times have come to an end.

But there is one remaining and open question: Will this be bad for Republicans in the South? The Voting Rights Act resulted in an alliance between the NAACP and the Republican party of the 1980s and 1990s to pack minorities into voting districts. This had the effect of ensuring that minorities would be elected to Congress (which the NAACP liked), but diluted minority influence in regular politics by reducing their numbers in all other voting districts (which the Republican party liked). The end of the Voting Rights Act might have the long-term effect of making more congressional seats in the South more competitive and reducing the number of safe seats for members of the congressional black caucus. I would say that that is another victory for the nation wrought by Shelby.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351985/why-today-better-yesterday-john-yoo

June 26, 2013

Voting Rights Act: Winning the Case While Losing the Principle

By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson

Yesterday morning, by a vote of five to four, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress could no longer rely on data of state racial discrimination affecting voting rights which had been assembled in the 1960’s and 1970’s to justify the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act.  Under the preclearance provision (section 4) struck down by the Court, some States and their political subdivisions had been required since 1965 to obtain approval by specified federal authorities in Washington, D.C. before any change in their voting laws can take effect.

Roberts.  Justice Thomas wrote aconcurring opinion.  A dissent was filed by Justice Ginsburg, with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

While the Court ruled that section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, this decision was anything but a principled victory, and, indeed, has opened the door to further legislation that could be every bit as bad, if not worse, than the section 4 which it struck down.

In the very first paragraph of the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the extraordinary nature of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 5 of the Act requiring “States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting [is] a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism….”  And, Section 4 of the Act “appl[ying] that requirement only to some States – [is] an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty.”

However extraordinary and unprecedented these two sections were viewed, the Court refused to rule that either section was unconstitutional for that reason.

Rather, the Court decided that the Section 4 formula governing whether a particular State or political subdivision was required to get Section 5 permission was unconstitutional solely because it was based upon outdated voting discrimination data.

On two occasions Justice Roberts cited with apparent approval some of the most lawless words ever written by the Supreme Court — words contained in Justice Warren’s opinion approving the original Voting Rights Act of 1965:  “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.”  South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 393 U.S. 301, 309 (1966).

In so ruling, the Court left the door open for Congress to assemble new data to enact into law a new formula whereby some States and their political subdivisions would be singled out for federal preclearance before they would be permitted to make any election law change.  And what might that new formula be?

According to Section 5, left intact by the Court, the 1965 Act, as amended, prohibits:  (i) any voting procedure that has “any discriminatory purpose” — not just one that worsens one’s exercise of the voting privilege, or (ii) any voting change that diminishes the ability of citizens on account of race, or language minority status “to elect their preferred candidates of choice.”  Neither outcome based test was ever envisioned by the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Court invited Congress to replace section 4 with a new and improved version.  Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

“Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.  Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an ‘extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government.'”

How refreshing to know that a State’s sovereignty cannot be overridden by the federal government — unless Congress and the President have an important reason to do so.

According to the Court’s decision, then, neither the principle of state sovereignty, nor the principle of state equality, preserved not only by the Tenth Amendment and by the nation’s federal structure dating back to the Declaration of Independence, stands in the way of an affirmative action by Congress that would single out those states that fail to elect to office minority group candidates sufficiently proportionate to their numbers in the population.

Thus, the Shelby County Court opinion frees Congress to amend the 1965 Act to impose new burdens on a new group of States and their political subdivisions — or on all states — just so long as Congress justifies the imposition of new burdens to meet current needs.

In our Shelby County amicus brief, we advocated a legal system that treats each man as man, no more and no less.  We urged the Court to strike down not only Section 4 of the 1965 Act, but Section 5 — to close the door to special privileges based upon race — minority, majority, or otherwise.  The Court rejected that invitation.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas claimed that the same reasons that justified the Court to strike down the outmoded formula of Section 4, would justify striking down Section 5 as well.  However, until the Court returns to the rule of law — fixed as to time, uniform as to person, and universal as to place — we will continue to be ruled by judges whose opinions change with changing times.

Postscript:  To put this case into the context of how the current Court views constitutional principles, just the day before the Court handed down Shelby County, the Court decided Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.  In Fisher the Court refused to adopt the principle of racial equality in the admission of students to the University, permitting race to be used as a factor in the admitting process if it did so in pursuance of a compelling interest to carry out a policy of educational diversity.  Thus, once again the Court sidestepped our constitutional commitment in the nation’s charter and in the Fourteenth Amendment to the principle of human equality regardless of race or color, and preserved the right of every justice to decide each case as he pleases, without meaningful constitutional constraint, doing what each believes to be right in his own eyes.

Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School.  Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration.  They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C.  They filed an amicus curiae brief in the Shelby County case.  They can be reached at wjo@mindspring.com or twitter.com/OlsonLaw

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Collectivist Victory Speech–The Collectivists March Forward Over The Fiscal Cliff–Videos

Posted on November 7, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

George Carlin Doesn’t vote

President Obama’s Election Night Victory Speech – November 6, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois 

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy 

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America” 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Red Pill or The Blue Pill–Name Your Poison–Obama or Romney–It’s A Big Club and You Ain’t In It–Videos

Posted on October 23, 2012. Filed under: American History, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Entertainment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Life, Links, media, Narcissism, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Red-pill/Blue Pill

LEW ROCKWELL: A Return to Totalitarianism (10/22/2012)

George Carlin – It’s a big club and you ain’t in it

George Carlin: Voting

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

When It Doubt Throw Them Out (Democrats and Republicans)–Vote On Tuesday, November 2, 2010–Do It For Your Children–Videos

Posted on October 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Stop Spending Our Future – STOP

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Glenn Beck-10/26/10-A

 

Glenn Beck-10/26/10-B

 

Glenn Beck-10/26/10-C

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Glenn Beck and G. Edward Griffin On Collectivism: Leninism, Fabian Socialism and Progressivism–Videos

Glenn Beck On Fabian Socialism–Videos

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

Glenn Beck On James Madison–The Father Of The United States Constitution–Videos

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

The Black Founding Fathers–Videos

The Founding Mothers–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

Glenn Beck Faith, Hope, Charity and Honor–Videos

How Many Americans Will Attend The Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., Saturday, August 28, 2010? Answer? 1 to 3 Million!

Glenn Beck Previews The Restoring Honor Rally–Saturday, August 28, 2010–The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C—Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Glenn Beck On Revolutionary Leaders–Jesus, Gandhi, King–Videos

Glenn Beck–Government Intervention In The Economy Is The Problem!–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Third Party Time? Yes Provided You Have $10 Billion and 10 Years!

President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

Obama Depression Worsens: Unemployment in September Hits 10.1% and Under Employment Hits 18.8% According To Gallup–17 Months Unemployment Over 9% with Over 15 Million Unemployed and 27 Million Underemployed!

The Party of Food Stamps–Government Dependency Party (GDP) vs. The Party of Paychecks–Grand Old Party (GOP)–Record 41,836,330 Americans On Food Stamps!

Barack Obama’s Favorite Economist–John Maynard Keynes–A Great Guy?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Individuals–Yes, Collectivists–No, Dissent–Yes, Racism–No, Life–Yes, Abortion–No, Ballots–Yes, Bullets–No–We The People Want Faith, Hope, Charity and Courage!

Posted on March 25, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 “The story of the Athenians in the time of Pericles suggests that the creation and survival of democracy requires leadership of a high order. When tested, the Athenians behave with the requied devotion, wisdom, and moderation in large part because they had been inspired by the democratic vision and example that Pericles had so effectively communicated to them. It was a vision that exalted the individual within the political community; it limited the scope and power of the state, leaving enough space for individual freedom, privacy, and the human dignity of which they are a crucial part. It rejected the leveling principle pursued by both ancient Sparta and modern socialism, which requires the suppression of those rights. By reqarding merit, it encouraged the individual achievement and excellence that makes life sweet and raises the qualtiy  of life for everyone. Above all, Pericles convinced the Athenians that their private needs, both moral and material, required the kind of community Athens had become. Therefore, they were willing to run risks in its defense, make sacrifices on its behalf, and restrain their passions and desires to preserve it.”

~Donald Kagan, Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy, page 273.

“Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”

~Winston Churchill

 

Glenn Beck – Slap Us In The Face Then Smile

Glenn Beck – American Revival Tour This Saturday In Orlando

The collectivists in the United States are primarily progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party led by President Barack Obama.

These progressive radical socialists have crammed down an Obama Care law that the vast majority of the American people who are satisfied with their health insurance plan and/or medical care are opposed to by a significant majority.

Camp Floor Statement Against the Democrats’ Trillion Dollar Health Care Bill

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE under obama budget

The use of the power of the state or the Federal Government to force the American people to buy  mandated health insurance plans or face fines and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service is both unconstitutional and un-american.

The progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party know the American people are angry and outraged with the Obama Care law.

The progressive radical socialists fear the American people.

The progressive radical socialists fear is well founded.

The progressive radical socialists fear has resulted in an attempt by them to shut the American people up by calling any dissent or opposition to the Obama Care bill–racism that will lead to violence.

The irony is that the Federal funding of abortions through subsidies that go to pay for health insurance plans that cover abortions as basic medical care kills the unborn child–racism and violence of unprecedent magnitude–evil.

The Obama Care bill is aimed directly at blacks, hispanics and the poor  to assist women in killing their unborn children–black, hispanic and poor genocide or democide–death by government.

The majority of the American people oppose the Federal government funding of  abortions, either directly or indirectly through subsidies to those who cannot afford health insurance plans. 

 A Presidential Executive banning the funding of abortions using Federal funds is not the law and can be rescinded at any time and does not have to be implemented. An Executive Order is just words on a piece of paper. The killing of thousands of black, hispanic and poor unborn babies continues daily–mass murder.

Obama Supports Planned Parenthood (Racist Planned Parenthood Organizaton)

Using the power of the state or Federal government to fund abortions is in fact modern day eugenics that was in the past and is now largely supported by those that are truly racist elitists at heart–progressive radical socialists.

The next time a progressive radical socialist of either the Democratic or Republican party asserts that opposition to the Obama Care law is racist and will lead to violence, just tell them to take a look in the mirror and go visit a Planned Parenthood abortion center in black, hispanic and the poor  neighborhoods of their city or the nation’s capital, Washington D.C.–America’s killing fields and concentration clinics.

Abortion and Black Genocide (Barack Obama and the Negro Project)

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Planned Parenthood Exposed (Exposed!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apLjGQnTVg8

 

John Hunter speaks about Maafa 21

Maafa 21–Videos

 

Hannity Exposes Planned Parenthood Fraud in Aurora, IL

 

Watch this video in a new windowPlanned Parenthood Exposed – New Undercover Video

 

 

The American people now know and understand that the progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party lead by President Barack Obama are today’s racists and killers of the most defenseless Americans– the unborn child and sick mature adults needing medical care and treatment.

The cuts in Medicare that will soon surpass over trillion dollars per year will directly result the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans that will not get the care and treatment they need in a timely manner.

Any American now receiving Medicare or the baby-boom generation that will in the next twenty-five years be relying on Medicare,  should vote all of the progressive radical socialists of both the Democratic and Republicans out of office in the next five elections.

The life you save may be your own or your child’s or grandchild’s baby.

When the progressive radical socialists must daily use lies and false charges of racism and violence against those who disagree with what they did, you know that fear and panic has set in among the progressive radical socialists.

Throw these progressive radical socialist out of office and power by using the ballot box in November and for the next ten years.

Whatever you decide to do, do not be baited into resenting them or using their tactics of lies and false accusations or even violence to respond.

If you do this, know this is exactly how the progressive radical socialists want you to respond.

This is the loser’s  game.

Vote the progressive radical socialists out of office and out of power.

Banish them to the private sector and let them make a living there, if they can.

Athens was the first republic or democracy.

Athens lost Peloponnesian War when Persia (Iran,) became allies and supported  Sparta. Although defeated in war the Athenians eventually recovered from their defeat and ousted both the Four Hundred oligarchs and The Thirty Tyrants in Athens that were backed by Sparta.

America has been at war with Iran supported by the Soviet Union now Russia for over thirty years, despite the efforts of both Republican and Democratic administrations to deny or play down this fact.  The Iranians use proxies to kill Americans and their allies both Britain and Israel.

Iran – The Mother of Modern Islamic Terrorism

America can ill afford a President who  appeases the Iranian regime instead of supporting the vast majority of Iranians  who demonstrate and risk their livies daily to replace the current political regime with a truly fairly elected and  representative government.

Michael Ledeen: Bring Down the Iranian Regime

The American people will not willing let their own representative republic be replaced by the modern day  equivalent of what Sparta imposed on Athens, the Four Hundred oligarchs and The Thirty Tyrants–the czars or commissars surrounding President Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The progressive radical socialist goals are socialized medicine or a Federal Government monopoly over health care with a single payer being the Federal Government and amnesty for the over thirty million illegal aliens living and working in the United States with comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship.

Progressive Caucus: No Compromise On Health Care

 

Grijalva on Public Health Care Option

Velazquez on Public Health Option

Public Option Off the Table?

Fabian Socialist Causus (CPC) – ‘All or Nothing’ – Lynn Woolsey

 

I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections

Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP)

Obama Double Talk, Caught In A Lie, Illegals and Healthcare Health Care, Immigration Reform Fox

 

The vast majority of the American people oppose both socialized medicine and amnesty for illegal aliens no matter what lies or words are used to describe Obama Care and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The vast majority of the American people want to keep their current health insurance plan, doctor and privacy and want limited legal immigration and illegal alien removal and deportation to their country of origin–immigration law enfocement.

The time has come to cleanup the House of Representatives, the Senate and The Executive Branch and vote out of office and power the progressive radical socialists that are wrecking the United States economy, destroying jobs, and killing the American Dream by creating dependency upon the state or government instead of individual self-reliance and achievement.

The progressive radical socialists are for social justice or stealing the American people’s  hard earned money by government taxation, regulation, force and coercion so that the progressive radical socialists can give the taxes and property stolen from the American people to their political friends and supporters such as ACORN and SEIU. Stealing is stealing now matter what you want to call it and how you accomplish it.

President Obama is the leader of this gang of corrupt crooks or progressive radical socialists.

Vote the progressive radical socialists out of office and power and punish them by putting them in jail where they truly belong!

Pericles speaking of the earlier Athenians  said they were the first to establish democracy by:

“believing the liberty of all to be the strongest source of harmony, by sharing with each other the hopes that arose from their shared dangers they had freedom of soul in their civic life. They used the law for honoring the good and punishing the evil. For they thought that it was the way of the wild beast to be ruled by one another by force, but that men should decide justice by law, to convince by reason, and to serve these two in act by submitting to the sovereignty of law and the instruction of reason.”

~Lysis, Funeral Oration 17-19.

 

“Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”

~Aristotle

 

Background Articles and Videos

17. The Peloponnesian War, Part I

18. The Peloponnesian War, Part I (cont.)

19. The Peloponnesian War, Part II

20. The Peloponnesian War, Part II (cont.)

Conversations with History: Victor Davis Hanson

War and Democracy in Ancient and Contemporary Middle East

Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War, 431 to 404 B.C., was an ancient Greek war, fought by Athens and its empire against the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta. Historians have traditionally divided the war into three phases. In the first phase, the Archidamian War, Sparta launched repeated invasions of Attica, while Athens took advantage of its naval supremacy to raid the coast of the Peloponnese attempting to suppress signs of unrest in its empire. This period of the war was concluded in 421 BC, with the signing of the Peace of Nicias. That treaty, however, was soon undermined by renewed fighting in the Peloponnese. In 415 BC, Athens dispatched a massive expeditionary force to attack Syracuse in Sicily; the attack failed disastrously, with the destruction of the entire force, in 413 BC. This ushered in the final phase of the war, generally referred to either as the Decelean War, or the Ionian War. In this phase, Sparta, now receiving support from Persia, supported rebellions in Athens’ subject states in the Aegean Sea and Ionia, undermining Athens’ empire, and, eventually, depriving the city of naval supremacy. The destruction of Athens’ fleet at Aegospotami effectively ended the war, and Athens surrendered in the following year.

The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek world. On the level of international relations, Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war’s beginning, was reduced to a state of near-complete subjection, while Sparta became established as the leading power of Greece. The economic costs of the war were felt all across Greece; poverty became widespread in the Peloponnese, while Athens found itself completely devastated, and never regained its pre-war prosperity.[1][2] The war also wrought subtler changes to Greek society; the conflict between democratic Athens and oligarchic Sparta, each of which supported friendly political factions within other states, made civil war a common occurrence in the Greek world.

Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally a limited and formalized form of conflict, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating vast swathes of countryside, and destroying whole cities, the Peloponnesian War marked the dramatic end to the fifth-century-B.C. golden age of Greece.[3]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

Congressional Progressive Caucus

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus in the United States Congress with 83 declared members, and works to advance progressive issues and positions.[1]

The CPC was founded in 1991 and currently has more than 80 members. The Caucus is co-chaired by Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Of the 20 standing committees of the House, 11 are chaired by members of the CPC.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by six members of the United States House of Representatives: Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Thomas Andrews (D-ME),Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Then-Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first. The founding members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, and the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response at the time.

Additional House representatives joined soon, including Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

The CPC’s founding statement of purpose states that it was “organized around the principles of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society, and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful”. The founding members underscored that the Cold War was over, and that the nation’s budget and overall priorities should reflect that. They called for cuts in outdated and unnecessary military spending, a more progressive tax system in which wealthy taxpayers and corporations contribute their fair share, a substantial increase in federal funding for social programs designed to meet the needs of low and middle-income American families, and trade policies that increase the exports of more American products and encourage the creation of well-paying jobs and sound investment in America. They also expressed their belief that those policy goals could be achieved in concert with a commitment to long-term fiscal responsibility. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

 

Congressional Progressive Caucus

Phone :202-225-5871
URL: Website

 Progressive Caucus (Democratic) (PC-D)'s Visual Map
 
 
 
 
 

  • Radical caucus of nearly six-dozen members of the House of Representatives
  • Until 1999, worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America

The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected House Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), who is a self-described socialist.

As of April 2007, the Progressive Caucus included Sanders (who became a U.S. Senator in 2006), Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and 69 members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftist Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

On November 11, 1999, the Progressive Caucus drafted its Position Paper on economic inequality. It reads, in part, as follows: “Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities. … The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric.”

In order “to bring new life to the progressive voice in U.S. politics,” the Progressive Caucus has worked closely with Progressive Challenge, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Progressive Challenge is a coalition through which the activities and talking points of leftist groups are synchronized and harmonized with one another, producing coordinated, mutually-reinforcing propaganda from some 200 seemingly-unconnected groups.

In 2005 the Progressive Caucus crafted its “Progressive Promise” document, which advocates socialized medicine; radical environmentalism; the redistribution of wealth; higher taxes; the elimination of numerous provisions of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government’s intelligence-gathering capabilities; debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help “re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.”

Until 1999 the Progressive Caucus worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations’ websites.

As of June 2006, the following Members of Congress belonged to the Progressive Caucus: Neil Abercrombie; Tammy Baldwin; Xavier Becerra; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Corrine Brown; Sherrod Brown; Michael Capuano; Julia Carson; Donna Christensen; William “Lacy” Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; John Conyers; Elijah Cummings; Danny Davis; Peter DeFazio; Rosa DeLauro; Lane Evans; Sam Farr; Chaka Fattah; Bob Filner; Barney Frank; Raul Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Maurice Hinchey; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Marcy Kaptur; Carolyn Kilpatrick; Dennis Kucinich; Tom Lantos; Barbara Lee; John Lewis; Ed Markey; Jim McDermott; James P. McGovern; Cynthia McKinney; George Miller; Gwen Moore; Jerrold Nadler; Eleanor Holmes Norton; John Olver; Major Owens; Ed Pastor; Donald Payne; Nancy Pelosi; Charles Rangel; Bobby Rush; Bernie Sanders; Jan Schakowsky; Jose Serrano; Louise Slaughter; Hilda Solis; Pete Stark; Bennie Thompson; John Tierney; Tom Udall; Nydia Velazquez; Maxine Waters; Diane Watson; Mel Watt; Henry Waxman; and Lynn Woolsey.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497

 

Victor Hanson – Illegal Immigration Backlash

 

 

Flynt Leverett Debates Michael Ledeen on Iran Policy 3-3-10

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Donald Kagan–Ancient Greek History–Open Yale Course–Videos

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Eugenics and Population Control

Margaret Sanger–Videos

The Progressive Radical Socialists’ Darkest Secret–Eugneics–The American Crusade To Create A Master Race

Maafa 21–Videos

Black Genocide–Eugenics–Planned Parenthood–Population Control–Videos

Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos 

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...