Of the extensive civil rights laws promulgated by Congress since the mid 1960s, the Voting Rights Act (“VRA” or “the Act”) would appear to be among the most constitutionally secure. The VRA was enacted in 1965 as a means of enabling direct federal intervention to enable African Americans to register and vote. Its passage was in part a response to the recalcitrance of Southern jurisdictions in the face of ineffective case-by-case litigation by the Department of Justice. Section 5, the controversial centerpiece of the Act, mandates that certain electoral jurisdictions submit for approval any proposed procedural changes “with respect to voting.” Section 5 has received constitutional affirmation from the Supreme Court as recently as 1999. Even amid recent Court decisions reining in congressional power to enforce the Fourteenth -and by extension, the Fifteenth- Amendment, the VRA seemingly has emerged as exemplary civil rights legislation.
Experts discuss legal developments and related ramifications one year after President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S. Southern Border with Mexico in order to build a wall.
The discriminatory laws, practices, and policies promised and delivered by President Trump have social, political, and economic ramifications. First, they reinforce misconceptions about Islam as an inherently violent religion. Second, they breed intolerance, fear, and hostility among the general population
"It's important to note that scholars have long observed that political discourse and political events can contribute to the frequency of bias incidents. In fact, this phenomenon has a name today. It's called the Trump Effect."
Do new domestic terrorism laws put Black Lives Matter supporters, anti-war protestors, and/or animal rights activists at risk? Do they presently incorporate sufficient safeguards against such misuse and abuse?