[During Jim Crow poll taxes and unfair literacy tests were meant to keep poor blacks (and some poor whites) from voting]
I lived in Mississippi when they had both. The poll taxes were not much $2 - $3 and the money was used to pay the poll workers. The literacy tests were very basic, probably at the 3rd grade level at the most and were just to see that the voter had some basic concept of government. Of course, The Federal Government declared this discriminatory and banned both. The average IQ of the electorate has been dropping ever since.
The result is an islamo-fascist usurper in The White House and a Congress headed by one of the stupidest women in the Country.
22 comments
One, if you're talking about Pelosi, she is no longer in charge thanks to the Tea Party Takeover of 2010.
Two, voting should be FREE! And those "literacy tests" were deliberately adjusted depending on color.
Finally, you just can't accept the fact that someone of Kenyan descent is a Christian, can you?
"The average IQ of the electorate has been dropping ever since. "
No, just the average IQ of the right.
This is what happens when you cut education, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindall.
Anyway, what you're ignoring is the fact that these were used to deliberately disenfranchise blacks. They most certainly didn't give a shit about whether that little old colored woman passed the test or not, she failed the unofficial skin color portion of the test.
Voting, as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, should be 100% free. There is also nothing in the Constitution which requires a literacy test in order to vote. While I'd hope that all voting Americans would be literate, and hopefully would be aware of the issues surrounding the election, such tests are unconstitutional and were always used to prevent poor, uneducated blacks from voting.
The Freebaggers seem fiercely determined to go down in history as one of humanity's greatest embarrasments. I'm done reciting the usual facts and refutations. There is no point in reasoning with someone who has already made up his mind, regardless of the evidence you present them with.
@#1419451
The thing about it is that poll taxes are unconstitutional to begin with. Whatever the charge is. Whether it's $3, $30,000 or $.03. No such power was delegated to State governments in the US Constitution. ESPECIALLY on the basis of skin color or the condition of one's parents or grandparents. Technically I think disallowing people who have been arrest and incarcerated from voting is unconstitutional as well.
You sound like the Fascist since you don't believe everyone should have the right to vote.
Except for maybe racists. A long-term scientific study recently proved that racists have below average IQ.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
Who's honestly surprised by that? Lol!
@#1420139 - Poll taxes were determined to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. The 24th Amendment basically just restates the 14th Amendment in more explicit and specific language. See Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.
Segregation was considered "constitutional" as well until judges who didn't interpret the law to agree with their predetermined prejudices finally reiterated the fact that segregation violates pretty much all of the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In short - a lot of things used to be considered "constitutional" that never really truly were.
@Vox Harper occurred in 1966 and used the 14th Amendment to extend the 24th's protection to all elections. In 1937 the court, in the Breedlove decision, found them to be constitutional. "Constitutional" is based on the interpretation of the judge at the time of the decision; there are almost no objective standards in that regard, especially when it comes to the powers of the states.
Allow me to quote from a political cartoon of the time:
"The Constitution says the Negro has the right to vote-
BUT WHAT CARE WE FOR THE CONSTITUTION"
Actually, as much fun as it would be to make fun of this person for not knowing that Nancy Pelosi isn't in charge of Congress anymore, the date on the original post is actually 2009 (when she still was.)
I remember discussing these, am I right in saying they were designed in such a manner that, at the time, you had to be of the right (read: White American) Culture in order to pass them, as they relied on ideas unique to the culture?
"The result is an islamo-fascist usurper in The White House..."
Obama has been ruthless pushing for a Muslim theoracy, like that time he...uhmmm...errr...SOCIALISM /freeper
You mean the one that had to be done in a really short time, had confusing and vague instructions, and the men running it would attempt every little tactic, nitpic, and technical definition to ensure those who pass are only those that they want to pass? Yeah, SO EASY.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
