Louisianan wrote:Emazia wrote:Frank Turner
(WPP-MS): "I motion to open debate on the matter, Mr. President."
President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no objections, there shall be an allotted time of one hour for debate, which will be divided amongst the speakers. Seeing as the Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Turner, motioned for the debate, he has an allotted time of 30 minutes in debate. The standard debate procedure is as follows, each speaker will receive thirty minutes, assuming there are just two, during which they may speak on the topic at hand using parliamentary language. After the said speaker is done speaking, he or she may reserve their time for future debate, after which, the chair will recognize the next speaker. Here's some advice, don't use the whole thirty minutes at once. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized to open debate."
Senator Sofia Fraser (
R-NY):
Firstly, my response to the idea that abolishing poll taxes is unconstitutional, is that the process of changing the constitution by following it's amendment process, is by definition constitutional. Senator Turner must know this, for it is obvious his concern is doing away with poll taxes. I appreciate the Senator going on record on this, as it'll be sure to follow him from this day forward whenever he makes reference to being on the side of the poor whites that these poll taxes disenfranchise.
Secondly, this body contains individuals who opposed the Voting Rights Enforcement Act and failed to overcome a filibuster on it's behalf, on the erroneous argument that the federal government should not be in the business of regulating elections, even to enforce that which is promised through the constitution, despite the fact it is explicitly in the power of the federal government to do so as provided before for Article Six of the constitution, which declares federal laws has having precedence over state law provided such federal laws don't contravene the constitution, as reaffirmed by the 10th amendment, which states that powers not delegated the the united states are reserved through to the states and people. It is notable that the 10th amendment says power, rather than rights, as while the people can exercise
rights individually, the people exercise
power through their representatives and of course the people pick their representatives with federal representatives being those with supreme law making power, again, provided again, that said laws are not in contravention of the constitution.
However, that is beside the point, as the VREA was written to operate on the powers provided for it under section 2 of the 15th amendment, which explicitly gives congress the power to enforce prevention of the denial of the right to vote on the basis race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As such, the legitimacy of the VREA was unassailable even when one applied originalist, textualist or strict constructionist interpretations to the constitution. The only argument against the legitimacy of the VREA on those grounds would be a peculiar form of loose constructionism which insists that state law has primacy over federal law, even in cases where amendments explicitly empower the federal government to act. Such a position would, of course, be utterly incompatible with support for Fusion Voting Bill. This is made more explicate by the fact that the 15th amendment makes an explicit command that race, color, or previous condition of servitude
shall not be denied or abridged by United States or by any State and tasks the congress with enforcing it, while Article 1, Section. 4 of the constitution, which I assume the fusion voting bill is operating under the power of, merely says that congress
may alter the laws and regulation of elections.
The difference is that failing to enforce the 15th amendment is an explicit breech of it, while this fusion voting bill simply permissible under the constitution. Any theory that says that the VREA is unconstitutional, would certainly make this fusion voting bill unconstitutional. Any principle that says the VREA is an infringement on some abstract states' rights that idea that exists outside of the constitution, must also see this Fusion voting bill as an infringement. Any one in this body who opposed the VREA on the grounds of infringement on state sovereignty, while support the VREA, is admitting to operating on acting on blatant hypocrisy that'd put to bed a notion, that sits at the foundation of the defense of the filibuster, that this senate is a place of reasoned deliberation rather than a body that shifts with partisan whims.
As for my part, my opposition to this Fusion Voting Bill rests on a severe distrust of effects of this bill, as proposed and supported by those who are engaged in the sort of insincerity I spoke of in their backing this bill, while opposing the Voting Rights Enforcement Act. It seems clear enough that on such a hypocritical position for reasons of illegitimate gain, which is to say I believe this proposal is intended to acerbate the issues brought about by the refusal end ongoing the breech of 15th amendment and as such, I'd that say that it's a duty of the supporters of our constitution, those who understand that if one allows any part of the constitution to be voided, outside of legitimate constitution processes risks all of the constitution, to oppose this bill, at least until the hypocrisy of supporting federal impositions on elections without an explicit constitutional basis, while opposing federal impositions on elections intended to bring the country in line with it's constitution, is rectified.