Analyzing the bill of rights ninth

Share A Guide to the Ninth Amendment The Ninth Amendment, or Amendment IX of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights was put into the United States Constitution on September 5, and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15,

Analyzing the bill of rights ninth

The committee's ranking Republican, William McCulloch R-OHgenerally supported expanding voting rights, but he opposed both the poll tax ban and the coverage formula, and he led opposition to the bill in committee.

The committee eventually approved the bill on May 12, but it did not file its committee report until June 1. The bill was next considered by the Rules Committeewhose chair, Howard W. Smith D-VAopposed the bill and delayed its consideration until June 24, when Celler initiated proceedings to have the bill discharged from committee.

It would have allowed the Attorney General to appoint federal registrars after receiving 25 serious complaints of discrimination about a jurisdiction, and it would have imposed a nationwide ban on literacy tests for persons who could prove they attained a sixth-grade education. However, support for H.

Tuck D-VA publicly said he preferred H.

Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions

His statement alienated most supporters of H. A major contention concerned the poll tax provisions; the Senate version allowed the Attorney General to sue states that used poll taxes to discriminate, while the House version outright banned all poll taxes.

Initially, the committee members were stalemated. To help broker a compromise, Attorney General Katzenbach drafted legislative language explicitly asserting that poll taxes were unconstitutional and instructed the Department of Justice to sue the states that maintained poll taxes.

To assuage concerns of liberal committee members that this provision was not strong enough, Katzenbach enlisted the help of Martin Luther King, Jr. King's endorsement ended the stalemate, and on July 29, the conference committee reported its version out of committee.

Bush signs amendments Analyzing the bill of rights ninth the Act in July Congress enacted major amendments to the Act in, and Each amendment coincided with an impending expiration of some or all of the Act's special provisions. Originally set to expire byCongress repeatedly reauthorized the special provisions in recognition of continuing voting discrimination.

In andCongress also expanded the reach of the coverage formula by supplementing it with new and trigger dates. Coverage was further enlarged in when Congress expanded the meaning of "tests or devices" to encompass any jurisdiction that provided English-only election information, such as ballots, if the jurisdiction had a single language minority group that constituted more than five percent of the jurisdiction's voting-age citizens.

These expansions brought numerous jurisdictions into coverage, including many outside of the South. For instance, Congress expanded the original ban on "tests or devices" to apply nationwide inand inCongress made the ban permanent. Originally set to expire after 10 years, Congress reauthorized Section in for seven years, expanded and reauthorized it in for 15 years, and reauthorized it in for 25 years.

Boldenwhich held that the general prohibition of voting discrimination prescribed in Section 2 prohibited only purposeful discrimination. Congress responded by expanding Section 2 to explicitly ban any voting practice that had a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose.

The creation of this "results test" shifted the majority of vote dilution litigation brought under the Act from preclearance lawsuits to Section 2 lawsuits.

Bossier Parish School Board[44] which interpreted the Section 5 preclearance requirement to prohibit only voting changes that were enacted or maintained for a "retrogressive" discriminatory purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose, and Georgia v.

Ashcroft[45] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates. Holderwhich struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional.

General provisions[ edit ] General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws[ edit ] Section 2 prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure Boldenthe Supreme Court held that as originally enacted inSection 2 simply restated the Fifteenth Amendment and thus prohibited only those voting laws that were intentionally enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose.

The history of official discrimination in the jurisdiction that affects the right to vote; The degree to which voting in the jurisdiction is racially polarized; The extent of the jurisdiction's use of majority vote requirements, unusually large electoral districtsprohibitions on bullet votingand other devices that tend to enhance the opportunity for voting discrimination; Whether minority candidates are denied access to the jurisdiction's candidate slating processes, if any; The extent to which the jurisdiction's minorities are discriminated against in socioeconomic areas, such as education, employment, and health; Whether overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns exist; The extent to which minority candidates have won elections; The degree that elected officials are unresponsive to the concerns of the minority group; and Whether the policy justification for the challenged law is tenuous.

The report indicates not all or a majority of these factors need to exist for an electoral device to result in discrimination, and it also indicates that this list is not exhaustive, allowing courts to consider additional evidence at their discretion.

The racial or language minority group "is sufficiently numerous and compact to form a majority in a single-member district "; The minority group is "politically cohesive" meaning its members tend to vote similarly ; and The "majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it The second and third preconditions are collectively known as the "racially polarized voting" or "racial bloc voting" requirement, and they concern whether the voting patterns of the different racial groups are different from each other.

If a plaintiff proves these preconditions exist, then the plaintiff must additionally show, using the remaining Senate Factors and other evidence, that under the " totality of the circumstances ", the jurisdiction's redistricting plan or use of at-large or multimember elections diminishes the ability of the minority group to elect candidates of its choice.

Strickland[63] the Supreme Court held that the first Gingles precondition can be satisfied only if a district can be drawn in which the minority group comprises a majority of voting-age citizens.

This means that plaintiffs cannot succeed on a submergence claim in jurisdictions where the size of the minority group, despite not being large enough to comprise a majority in a district, is large enough for its members to elect their preferred candidates with the help of "crossover" votes from some members of the majority group.

A2 In contrast, the Supreme Court has not addressed whether different protected minority groups can be aggregated to satisfy the Gingles preconditions as a coalition, and lower courts have split on the issue. In particular, the Court held that even where the three Gingles preconditions are satisfied, a jurisdiction is unlikely to be liable for vote dilution if its redistricting plan contains a number of majority-minority districts that is proportional to the minority group's population.

The decision thus clarified that Section 2 does not require jurisdictions to maximize the number of majority-minority districts. In Gingles, the Supreme Court split as to whether plaintiffs must prove that the majority racial group votes as a bloc specifically because its members are motivated to vote based on racial considerations and not other considerations that may overlap with race, such as party affiliation.As a follow-up to Tuesday’s post about the majority-minority public schools in Oslo, the following brief account reports the latest statistics on the cultural enrichment of schools in Austria.

Vienna is the most fully enriched location, and seems to be in roughly the same situation as Oslo. Many thanks to Hermes for the translation from plombier-nemours.com Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution attempts to ensure that certain rights — while not specifically listed as being granted to the American people in the other sections of the Bill of Rights — should not be violated.

The CREATRIX Innovation Assessment & platform empowers you to be innovative; personally and from a business perspective—building innovative talent and cultures of innovation.

Analyzing the bill of rights ninth

The Bill of Rights may well be the most celebrated part of the Constitution of the United States, the home to long-cherished guarantees of Americans' most fundamental rights and freedoms. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. The right to bear arms. Freedom from imprisonment.

[Rev. 6/2/ PM] CHAPTER - SYSTEM OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. GENERAL PROVISIONS. NRS Kinds of public schools.. NRS Division of public schools in school district into departments.. NRS Zoning of school district by board of trustees; establishment of zones does not preclude pupil’s attendance at certain other public schools.

Article expired | The Japan Times