[EL] simple-minded question about Shelby County decision

[Jonathan Adler]

I think this question misunderstands the premises underlying the majority
opinion.  For the majority, the question is not whether a given
constitutional provision compels this result.  Rather, the question is what
provision of the Constitution authorizes this exercise of federal power.
Given that the 15th Amendment merely provides Congress with the power to
“enforce” the Amendment’s guarantees through “appropriate” legislation, the
argument would be that Congress cannot be said to enforcing the Amendment’s
guarantees against present threats through “appropriate” legislation
insofar as it has re-enacted a coverage formula based upon what was
occurring 40-some years ago.



I should note that I don’t know whether I agree with the majority opinion,
as I don’t feel I’ve studied either the 15th Amendment or the VRA enough to
have a firm opinion on the question, but I think this is the best way to
understand the majority’s rationale (even if this is not quite how Roberts
explained it).



JHA



------
Jonathan H. Adler
Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law
Director, Center for Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106
ph) 216-368-2535
fax) 216-368-2086
cell) 202-255-3012
jha5 at case.edu
http://www.jhadler.net
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995




*From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard Winger
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:52 PM
*To:* law-election at uci.edu
*Subject:* [EL] simple-minded question about Shelby County decision



I have only read today's decision once, and that was over an hour ago.  I
could re-read it to answer my question, but I'm lazy and will ask the list.
  What part of the US Constitution supports today's decision?

It can't be the 10th amendment, because the 15th amendment gives Congress
authority to act against racial discrimination in voting.

It can't be the 14th amendment.  The equal protection clause applies to
people, not states.

Today's decision seems to place the Court in the role of a
super-legislature, not a court.  The court can't strike down a law without
relying on some part of the US Constitution, so what part is it relying on?

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130625/defd1a02/attachment.html>