Voting right act and preclearance

In the landmark case, Shelby County V. Holder (2013), the US Supreme Court struck down major provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act relating to the procedure of “pre-clearance.” Since the ruling, states like Texas, Georgia and North Carolina, can now make changes to their voting laws, such as photo ID requirements, that do not need to be pre-approved by the federal government. Supporters of this ruling say the pre-clearance rules are no longer needed and besides, states need new laws to protect against voter fraud. Opponents say that these laws are just a new form of voter suppression tactics that hit the poor and racial minorities hardest. Based on this, your paper must meet the following content, format and submission requirements:

1. Describe the provisions (parts) of the Voting Rights Act that discuss the issue of “pre-clearance”.
2. Compare and contrast the views of those who think the federal government should have the power of “pre-clearance” and those who do not. Include at least three points of comparison.
3. Using evidence from any election in 2014 or later, argue whether or not you believe the federal government should have the power of “pre-clearance” relating to election laws. Include at least three reasons and/or examples to make your point.
4. List at least two things you could do in order to engage in the political process in pursuit of your position in (3) above.

Sample Answer


As Osborne takes note of, the conciliatory love to Roman divinities regularly required observing as opposed to investment and what used to be considered as a customary agape dinner of consideration turned out to be vigorously affected into something of an extra-normal noteworthiness of sacrosanct and conciliatory recognition.

In 1140AD the organization of the ceremonies start were built up as acts that were "appointed by Christ". The specification by Peter Lombard was important because of shocking and dissident lessons and hence all other cultic articulations that had crawled into chapel practice were dismissed. By 1158 seven holy observances were officially recorded into the Book of Sentences through which Eucharist was officially viewed as a holy observance.

The Catholic church communicates that the Eucharist is a holy thanksgiving supper through which the individuals who are in fellowship with the congregation are allowed to get this holy observance of effortlessness. Christ is accepted to be naturally present in the bread and wine, a constant offering of effortlessness and a "salvific well of our salvation". Through the organization of the Last Supper, Catholics accept that Christ truly gave himself in the blowout and through which they join themselves "with the superb sacrament and envision the unceasing life".

The Roman Catholic regulation is upheld by the 'incarnational contention' whereby the "bread and wine, by expressions of Christ and the summon of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood". This is considered transubstantiation through which the "genuine nearness of Christ" suffers to the extent that the Eucharistic species (bread and wine) subsists.

The term transubstantiation was communicated by Aquinas in 1270AD, vigorously convinced by Aristotle's classes of substance and mishap as a model to clarify the genuine nearness of Christ.

The festival of the Eucharist is to be offered uniquely under the divination of a cleric and further through a rich legacy from the witnesses, patristic dads under the authority of Rome today. Proudly, the Catholic church don't enable other Christian custom to partake in their agape dinner nor grant their adherents to partake in different conventions of table cooperation.