• About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Download App
  • Virtual Summit
  • Benefit Hub for Subscribers Only
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • News
  • Culture
  • Mental Health
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Disability
  • Webinars
  • Podcast
Find/Post Jobs
  • Home
  • News
  • Culture
  • Mental Health
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Disability
  • Webinars
  • Podcast
No Result
View All Result
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good
No Result
View All Result
Home Social Justice Criminal Justice

Voting Rights Act, Privileges, and Immunities of United States Constitution

Demecia Wooten-IrizarrybyDemecia Wooten-Irizarry
April 7, 2019
in Criminal Justice, Politics
0
ADVERTISEMENT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on PinterestShare via EmailShare on Reddit

George WillAs I scanned newspaper opinions on the recent US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down section 4 of Voting Rights Act of 1965, political columnist George Will’s Washington Post article immediately stood out.  He proposes that Justice Anton Scalia might have referred to the name of the 2006 extension as the “Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.”   George Will stated upholding the United States Congress’ 2006 reauthorization would have been “anti-constitutional”.  What does he mean by “anti-constitutional”, and why not the “John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Martin Luther King Reauthorization and Amendments Act?”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.) prohibits States and their political subdivisions from imposing voting requirements or preconditions to voting, as well as standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.  Congress based its power to approve voting procedures on the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

  • Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States 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.

  • Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I would ask Mr. Will, why the reauthorization is “anti-constitutional”.  The 15th Amendment does not provide any specific formula nor does it require any specific benchmark for Congress to remedy its application. The decision by the Supreme Court is more of a legislative action rather than a judiciary explanation.

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to attack the effects of State policies adopted under the stimulus of unambiguously pro-slavery and racist doctrines.  The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to strengthen and increase the reach of the old Privileges and Immunities Clause. Consequently, one of its first proposals for the Fourteenth Amendment was to give Congress the power both to enforce the clause and to confirm that all persons be protected in their person and property.

On April 28 of 1866, the “Joint Committee of Fifteen” voted in favor of a second draft proposed by Congressman John Bingham, which would eventually be adopted into the Constitution.  On May 10 of 1866 during the closing debate on the House floor, Congressman Bingham the primary author of the Privileges & Immunities Clause explained:

“[M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever…”

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868.  The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues, as earlier indicated, related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment specified in Section 1 of the amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” as citizens of the United States were citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibited state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the law.

Sections 2 to 5 reflect the immediate concerns of the Union’s political leadership following the North’s victory over the South in the Civil War (1861–65). Section 2, for example, penalized any state that attempted to abridge (curtail) the voting rights of its black male residents by reducing the state’s representation in Congress (there were no female residents of any race afforded the constitutional right to vote in the United States until 1920). Section 3 prohibited from holding state or federal office any person who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” or otherwise gave “aid or comfort to the enemies” during the Civil War. Section 4 reasserted the United States’ commitment to pay its Civil War debt, while declaring all debts and obligations incurred by the Confederate government as “illegal and void”. Section 5 enabled, and continues to enable, Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Given the history and purposes of the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Justice Department should be confident in its administrative efforts to curtail any State’s attempt to abridge American citizen’s right to vote.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
ADVERTISEMENT
Previous Post

Living Macro in a Micro World: Students Fighting for Macro Practice

Next Post

Analysis of Shelby v Holder: the Downfall of the Voters Right Act of 1965

Demecia Wooten-Irizarry

Demecia Wooten-Irizarry

DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry is a retired social worker having had experience in non-profit management as well as with the state and federal legislature.

Related Posts

Hate Sites Using the Wider Abortion Argument to Spread Racism and Extremism
Health

Hate Sites Using the Wider Abortion Argument to Spread Racism and Extremism

June 29, 2022
In A New World, Social Work Leads the Way
Criminal Justice

In A New World, Social Work Leads the Way

June 14, 2022
Poverty, Racism and the Public Health Crisis in America
Criminal Justice

Poverty, Racism and the Public Health Crisis in America

November 26, 2021
How American Cities Can Promote Urban Agriculture
Environmental Justice

How American Cities Can Promote Urban Agriculture

November 24, 2021
The Covid Pandemic Increased Vulnerability to Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains
Criminal Justice

The Covid Pandemic Increased Vulnerability to Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains

November 23, 2021
How Environmental Policies Can Promote Economic Growth
Environmental Justice

How Environmental Policies Can Promote Economic Growth

June 24, 2022
Next Post
Analysis of Shelby v Holder: the Downfall of the Voters Right Act of 1965

Analysis of Shelby v Holder: the Downfall of the Voters Right Act of 1965

House Republicans Stripped Food Stamp Provisions from Farm Bill

House Republicans Stripped Food Stamp Provisions from Farm Bill

Leave Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
What Can Be Done To Solve The Foster Care Crisis?

Ending the Therapeutic Relationship: Creative Termination Activities

June 24, 2022
What Feelings Are In Your Heart: An Art Therapy Exercise for Kids

What Feelings Are In Your Heart: An Art Therapy Exercise for Kids

June 19, 2022
Want to Work With Children: 5 Skills and Qualities You Should Be Working On

Want to Work With Children: 5 Skills and Qualities You Should Be Working On

April 7, 2019

Connect With Us

Twitter
FlipboardInstagram
ADVERTISEMENT
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram TikTok
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good

  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Buy Merch
  • Download App
  • Terms of Service

© 2022 Social Work Helper, PBC

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • News
    • Culture
    • Technology
    • Politics
    • Criminal Justice
    • Social Work
    • Education
    • LGBTQ
    • Technology
    • Disability
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Webinars
  • Virtual Summit
  • Career Center
  • Download App
  • Subscriber Benefit Hub
  • Subscribe
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Cart

© 2022 Social Work Helper, PBC

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Fill the forms below to register

*By registering into our website, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.
Go to mobile version