I agree with what Scalia said

[ashling]

maybe not with what he meant, but with what he said:

"The law is a perpetuation of racial entitlement."

Every citizen over the age of 18 in this country - subject to some exceptions for felonies, etc. - is entitled to participate in politics in this nation. Entitled to a voice in the governance of this nation. Entitled to vote.

In 1965, after years of having that privilege denied them solely because of their race, the Congress put into place a measure to ensure that they were denied no longer. The Voting rights Act of 1965 guaranteed that right and has been renewed multiple times.

Yes, the purpose of this law was to perpetuate this entitlement, guaranteed by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution and earned through the blood, tears, and sweat of thousands. A right they are entitled to in perpetuity as long as this nation survives.

Because if African Americans are again denied that right and the measures put in place to protect it, I seriously doubt that this nation will be entitled to survive.

Damn straight, Tony! The law is a perpetuation of a racial entitlement.

And thank God for it.

[FarPoint]

1. Ahhh...hmmmmm

[elleng]

2. Yes but its not a 'racial' entitlement,

its a citizen's entitlement. Fortunately the Voting Rights Act, aside from Title 5 which is at issue now, contains provisions that ANY jurisdiction may be subjected to similar protections, if a Federal Court finds a need. This has already been done numerous times.

[ashling]

3. I don't have a problem with saying it that way,

but let me restate it in another way with which you may agree. The entitlement is for ALL citizens - As I clearly stated in my post. However, this entitlement was denied to certain citizens on the basis of their race. Section 2 of the law states: " No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

The problem being remedied was racial in nature, so the remedy was specifically racial in nature. That, to me, seems perfectly logical and acceptable.

However, you could also say that the law perpetuates an entitlement insofar as the lack of that entitlement has been effected on the basis of the race or color of the citizen who is entitled.