Been to Walmart lately?

[DinoDoc]

There is an excellent reason to single out southern states simply based on their past actions.

Is that enough to justify on on-going oversight, even decades later, without real evidence of on-going abuse?

[PLATO]

That ignores the fact that southern states have a two century long history of an organized and deliberate campaign of disenfranchisement aimed at both black and native voters while northern (and westerner) states do not. There is an excellent reason to single out southern states simply based on their past actions.

Perhaps you should look at Indian voting rights in Western States that continue to be an issue even today. Or do you feel that Indians have less rights than Blacks?

Singling out the South is wrong given the current environment. I would, however, support a general federal oversight of each States elections...much as I think that it is not a federal issue.

[Sava]

goddamn black people and their racial entitlement... thinking they are entitled to vote

[Imran Siddiqui]

That ignores the fact that southern states have a two century long history of an organized and deliberate campaign of disenfranchisement aimed at both black and native voters while northern (and westerner) states do not. There is an excellent reason to single out southern states simply based on their past actions.

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

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.[15] The Commission's two Democratic members dissented from the report, charging that the Commission had "abandon[ed] the field of battle."[16]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If only California were held to the same standards for its rank bigotry complicity and hatred when denying Japanese Americans the right to vote.

[The Mad Monk]

OK, I have to go to Arkansas now.

Hah?

[Sava]

I bought my nintendo wii at walmart

[PLATO]

I bought my nintendo wii at walmart

Bet that was a uhhh..."a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators." changer.

[Felch]

Make it everyone then. Not that the south get to ***** too much, as neither seceding nor oppressing other US citizens are exactly constitutional either.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit secession. The Union army prohibits it.

[giblets]

YES another civil war debate!!!!! This time I will finally make the traitors see the errors of their ways.

[Felch]

It's not really a debate. Unless there's some other side out there that can point to the provision in the Constitution that prohibits secession. Right now it's just kentonio being his usual ignorant ass British self.

[giblets]

The British don't have a written constitution do they? They just believe whatever they want to be constitutional.

[kentonio]

It's not really a debate. Unless there's some other side out there that can point to the provision in the Constitution that prohibits secession. Right now it's just kentonio being his usual ignorant ass British self.

Who decides what is constitutional? Would that be the Supreme Court? The same Supreme Court that ruled in Texas vs White that states do not have a right to unilaterally secede? Gosh, it must suck not knowing how your own country works.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And let's be honest, there has been this lie that has been advanced that the states say themselves as free to leave the Union ever since the Revolution. The Articles of Confederation tend to show that to be false:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

The Preamble states:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Section XIII

And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

Perpetual meaning...

And the preamble of the US Constitution states:

to form a more perfect Union

So, a perpetual union made more perfect. Seems fairly clear you can't leave.

[Felch]

Who decides what is constitutional? Would that be the Supreme Court? The same Supreme Court that ruled in Texas vs White that states do not have a right to unilaterally secede? Gosh, it must suck not knowing how your own country works.

And let's be honest, there has been this lie that has been advanced that the states say themselves as free to leave the Union ever since the Revolution. The Articles of Confederation tend to show that to be false...

Imran's view is perfectly orthodox, that is to say, it is in agreement with SCOTUS, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional authority. Here's the meat of Chase's argument:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' [12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

Notice that the only part of the Constitution he cites is the Preamble. Just like Imran, he's basing his decision principally on the Articles of Confederation, a document which is no longer in effect. Now look back to what I originally said:

The Constitution doesn't prohibit secession. The Union army prohibits it.

I don't deny that secession is prohibited. I just don't see anything in the Constitution that denies that authority to the States. I do see this little tidbit though:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me where the Constitution actually prohibits States from seceding, and I'll admit that I'm wrong. "Perfect Union" is not a prohibition.