Voting Rights Act (1965)

This “act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution” was signed into law 95 years after the amendment was ratified. In those years, African Americans in the South faced tremendous obstacles to voting, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and other bureaucratic restrictions to deny them the right to vote. They also risked harassment, intimidation, economic reprisals, and physical violence when they tried to register or vote. As a result, very few African Americans were registered voters, and they had very little, if any, political power, either locally or nationally.

In 1964, numerous demonstrations were held, and the considerable violence that erupted brought renewed attention to the issue of voting rights. The murder of voting-rights activists in Mississippi and the attack by state troopers on peaceful marchers in Selma, AL, gained national attention and persuaded President Johnson and Congress to initiate meaningful and effective national voting rights legislation. The combination of public revulsion to the violence and Johnson's political skills stimulated Congress to pass the voting rights bill on August 5, 1965.

The legislation, which President Johnson signed into law the next day, outlawed literacy tests and provided for the appointment of Federal examiners (with the power to register qualified citizens to vote) in those jurisdictions that were "covered" according to a formula provided in the statute. In addition, Section 5 of the act required covered jurisdictions to obtain "preclearance" from either the District Court for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Attorney General for any new voting practices and procedures. Section 2, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition of the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. The use of poll taxes in national elections had been abolished by the 24th amendment (1964) to the Constitution; the Voting Rights Act directed the Attorney General to challenge the use of poll taxes in state and local elections. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

Because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the Federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War, it was immediately challenged in the courts. Between 1965 and 1969, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices for which preclearance was required. [See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)]

The law had an immediate impact. By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one-third by Federal examiners. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states had fewer than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982.

Yes it does cater major question to some extent but these short notes go along way in understanding these topics easily. Coming to your second question about US-Pakistan relations, yes I'll share detailed post in that encompasses 70 years of relations with the US. Thank you for taking interest.

__________________
“What we need in this country today is more courage and more belief in the things that we have.”- Thomas J. Watson

What Books would you recommend for this subject? What was your score in previous attempts? Is this even a high scoring subject? Good info on this thread. How can i find other relevant material on this forum? I'm very new to this. Please

__________________
Dadho Sutho! Jeay Latif, Jeay Sindh!

I appeared in '14 and qualified but couldn't get allocated due to my own blunders in interview. Previously I'd Arabic, Geographic, Punjabi & International Law. This US History is chose for my last appearance. This is indeed a good subject. I've studied couple of books on this subject and gone through Yale University Lectures on YouTube (link's attached below). Additional information from Internet, Papers, Monthly mags is always quite handy. Please go through this forum. There's mountains of treasure here. Just spend more time in threads relevant to your optional combination. Would like to hear form you. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shTB...EBE077F9257558

__________________
“What we need in this country today is more courage and more belief in the things that we have.”- Thomas J. Watson

Could you please your optional score in your previous two attempts?

Bajwa’s visit to Kabul presages new chapter in resolving Afghan conflict: Mattis

WASHINGTON: Chief of the Army Staff Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s visit to Kabul earlier this week presages a new chapter’ in ending the Afghan conflict, says US Defence Secretary James Mattis.

Appearing before two congressional panels on Tuesday, Secretary Mattis also revealed that the United States had chalked out a plan for reengaging Pakistan for resolving bilateral differences.

“Right now, based on a very recent visit by the chief of army staff from Pakistan, there is actually optimism [here] and in Kabul that his visit presages a new chapter,” Mr Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Secretary Mattis and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Joseph Dunford appeared before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to brief lawmakers on the situation in Afghanistan.

“We were encouraged, just this week, with General Bajwa’s visit to Afghanistan…He had very good meetings with Afghan leadership. Our leadership was engaged in those meetings as well,” said Gen Dunford.

Mr Mattis said the US assistant secretaries and national security staff would visit Pakistan soon for talks on how to reengage Islamabad in efforts to eradicate terrorism. And these visits will be followed by himself and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, he told the House Armed Services Committee.

“I would like to think we will be successful,” but that the United States “has an enormously powerful number of options” if not, said Mr Mattis.

“I think that right now with the growing consensus against terrorism, they’ll find themselves diplomatically isolated, they’ll find themselves economically in increasing trouble as countries that are damaged by this terrorism coming out of there say enough is enough and take steps,” he said.

In the morning session, Mr Mattis told the committee that the US would try “one more time” to work with Pakistan on the Afghanistan front before President Donald Trump turned to “other options” to address Islama*bad’s alleged support for militant groups.

At the House committee, Gen Dunford accused Pakistani intelligence agencies of having links with certain terrorists group and urged them to sever those ties.

“I think it’s clear to me that the ISI has connections with terrorist groups,” said the general while responding to a question from Senator Joe Donnelly.

“Gen Dunford, is it your sense that the ISI is still helping the Taliban?” Senator Donnelly asked.

Gen Dunford said he believed a multilateral approach might help in bringing changes in Pakistan’s behaviour. Secretary Mattis backed this claim, acknowledging that Pakistani intelligence agencies were helping the Taliban.

“We have seen havens left to the terrorists’ own devices. We have seen the government of Pakistan come down on terrorism, while ISI appears to run its own foreign policy,” he said.

Mr Mattis said the Trump administration was very clear and firm in what it expected from Pakistan and was using all options to bring about that change.

“There are a number of lines of effort being put together now in Secretary of Treasury’s office, Secretary of State’s office, my own office, the intel agencies. We are also working with Secretary General Stoltenberg to ensure that Nato’s equities are brought to bear,” Mr Mattis said, responding to a question on why would Pakistan change its mind on terrorist safe havens this time.

But committee chairman Senator John McCain said he feared that “we still do not know what specific steps the United States will take to convince or compel Pakistan to change its behaviour, or what costs we will impose if Pakistan fails to do so”.

Published in Dawn, October 5th, 2017

US voices concern about stability of Pakistan government

WASHINGTON: US Sec*retary of State Rex Tillerson said after a meeting with Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif on Wednesday that he believed the United States had a reliable partner in Pakistan.

In his brief remarks to the media following the meeting, Sec*retary Tillerson expressed concerns about the future of Pakistan’s government, stressing that Washington wanted a stable government in Islamabad.

While the secretary’s remarks about the future of US and Pakistan’s relationship came as a pleasant surprise for Pakistan observers in Washington, his comments on stability of the government in Islamabad alarmed many. This marks the first time a US official has publicly addressed the political conflict in Islamabad, clearly backing the political setup.

When asked if the meeting with Pakistan’s foreign minister had convinced him that the United States had a reliable partner in Pakistan, Secretary Tillerson respon*ded: “Yes, I believe we do.”

The top US diplomat added that US-Pakistan relationship held extraordinary importance in the region. “And as we rolled out the South Asia strategy, we spoke about it in a regional context,” he said.

FM Khawaja Asif meets Tillerson at State Department

“It is not just about Afghanistan. This is about the importance of Pakistan, and Pakistan’s long-term stability as well,” said Mr Tillerson, directly addressing Islamabad’s fear that Washington continued to view its relationship with Pakistan from the perspective of neighbouring Afgha*nistan, and in doing so, ignored Islamabad’s interests.

Although the question put to him did not mention the political situation in Pakistan, Mr Tillerson used the opportunity to address it. “We have concerns about the future of Pakistan’s government too, in terms of them — we want their government to be stable. We want it to be peaceful. And many of the same issues they’re struggling with inside of Pakistan are our issues,” he said.

The secretary of state added: “So, we think there is an opportunity for us to strengthen that relationship. We’re going to be working very hard at all levels, from the State Department to the Defence Department to our intelligence communities, as well as economic, commerce opportunities as well.”

This was an obvious reference to concerns, expressed both publicly and privately, by US and Pakistani officials since Aug 21, when President Donald Trump announced his new strategy for South Asia in a speech from the White House. Informed leaks to the media indicated that the US-Pakistan relationship was on the brink of a break-up.

Even on Wednesday, a number of news outlets in the US and Pakistan reported that the Trump administration could strike Pakistan out of its list of major non-Nato allies and stop, or greatly reduce, its economic and military assistance to Islamabad. Some reports also talked about the possibility of expanding drone strikes inside Pakistan to target alleged terrorist safe havens.

Secretary Tillerson, however, reemphasised the need to engage with Pakistan at all levels — instead of walking away from it — for rebuilding a relationship that has been and continue to be mutually beneficial.

He explained that the new US strategy for South Asia “really is a regional approach, and Pakistan is critical, I think, to the long-term stability of the region”.

Later, the Pakistan Embassy issued a statement, saying that Foreign Minister Asif and Secretary Tillerson had met at the State Department on Wednesday for an exchange of views on bilateral and regional issues of mutual interest. Mr Asif, who is visiting Washington at Secretary Tillerson’s invitation, said that Pakistan and the United States shared a common desire for peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region at large, the embassy’s statement said.

Mr Asif had pointed out that Pakistan was winning its war against terrorism, and in contrast to other countries, the incidence of terrorism in Pakistan had seen a marked decline. This has also had a salutary impact on economic and commercial activity which was made possible because Pakistan had pursued zero-tolerance and indiscriminate approach in its campaign against all terrorist and militant groups, he said.

The minister informed the secretary of state about the strong public reaction in Pakistan to the US administration’s South Asia Policy — “based on inadequate recognition of Pakistan’s sterling contribution in the fight against terrorism”.

The embassy said that Secretary Tillerson had acknowledged and appreciated the sacrifices rendered by the people and armed forces of Pakistan in the struggle against terrorism. He said that Pakistan’s interests and concerns would be accommodated since its role was critical to President Trump’s South Asia Strategy. He added that future stability of Pakistan was an important element of the US strategy.

The foreign minister urged the United States to take note of the gross human rights violations being perpetrated by Indian security forces in Occupied Kashmir. He said peace in South Asia would remain out of reach until the resolution of all longstanding disputes, including the core dispute of Jammu and Kashmir.

Mr Asif also invited Secretary Tillerson to visit Islamabad to continue their discussions, which the US diplomat accepted.

Published in Dawn, October 5th, 2017

US will try to work with Pakistan ‘one more time’, says Mattis

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary James Mattis said on Tuesday Washington would try “one more time” to work with Islamabad on the Afghanistan front before President Donald Trump turned to options to address Pakistan’s alleged support for militant groups.

“We need to try one more time to make this strategy work with them, by, with and through the Pakistanis, and if our best efforts fail, the President is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary,” the defence secretary said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

According to sources in Washington, the likely Trump administration responses being discussed include expanding US drone strikes and perhaps eventually downgrading Pakistan’s status as a major non-Nato ally.

In a separate Senate hearing on Tuesday, the top US military officer said he believed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had ties to militant groups.

“It is clear to me that the ISI has connections with terrorist groups,” General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Published in Dawn, October 4th, 2017

__________________
“What we need in this country today is more courage and more belief in the things that we have.”- Thomas J. Watson

How to Amend the US Constitution

​An amendment to the U.S. Constitution revises, corrects, or improves the original document approved in 1788. While thousands of amendments have been discussed over the years, only 27 have been approved and six have been officially rejected. According to the Senate Historian, from 1789 through December 16, 2014, about 11,623 measures to amend the Constitution had been proposed.

While there are five “other” ways in which the U.S. Constitution may be -- and has been -- amended, the Constitution itself spells out the only “official” methods.


Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment may be proposed either by the U.S. Congress or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. To date, none of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by a constitutional convention demanded by the states.

Article V also temporarily banned the amendment of certain parts of Article I, which establishes the form, functions, and powers of Congress. Specifically, Article V, Section 9, clause 1, which prevents Congress from passing laws restricting the importation of slaves; and clause 4, declaring that taxes must be levied according to state populations, were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808. While not an absolute ban, Article V also shields Article I, Section 3, clause 1, providing for equal representation of the states in the Senate from being amended.

CONGRESS PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT

An amendment to the Constitution, as proposed in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, is considered in the form of a joint resolution.

To gain approval, the resolution must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since the President of the United States has no constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution, if approved by Congress, does not go to the White House for signature or approval.


The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) forwards the proposed amendment approved by Congress to all 50 states for their consideration. The proposed amendment, along with explanatory information prepared by the U.S. Office of the Federal Register, is mailed directly to the governors of each state.

The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their state legislatures or the state calls for a convention, as specified by Congress. Occasionally, one or more of the state legislatures will vote on proposed amendments before receiving official notification from the Archivist.

If the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (38 of 50) approve, or “ratify” the proposed amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution.

Clearly this method of amending the Constitution can be a lengthy process, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th Amendment granting women the right to vote, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification.

THE STATES CAN DEMAND A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Should two-thirds (34 of 50) of the state legislatures vote to demand it, Congress is required by Article V to convene a convention for the purpose of considering amendments to the Constitution.

Similar to the historic Constitutional Convention of 1787, in Philadelphia, the so-called “Article V convention” would be attended by delegates from each state who could propose one or more amendments.

While such Article V Conventions have been suggested to consider certain single issues like the balanced budget amendment, neither Congress or the courts have not clarified whether such a convention would be legally bound to limit its consideration to a single amendment.

While this method of amending the Constitution has never been used, the number of states voting to call an Article V Convention has come close to the required two-thirds on several occasions. In fact, Congress has often chosen to propose constitutional amendments itself because of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than facing the risk of allowing the states to take away its control of the amendment process, Congress has preemptively proposed amendments instead.

To date, at least four amendments – the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth – have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.

AMENDMENTS ARE BIG MOMENTS IN HISTORY

Recently, the ratification and certification of constitutional amendments have become significant historical events deemed worthy of ceremonies attended by government dignitaries including the President of the United States.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the certifications for the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments as a witness, and President Richard Nixon, accompanied by three young children, similarly witnessed the certification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment granting 18-year-olds the right to vote.

__________________
“What we need in this country today is more courage and more belief in the things that we have.”- Thomas J. Watson

List of 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

1st Amendment: Guarantees the right to the freedoms of speech, press, and religion. Protects the right to petition the government.

2nd Amendment: Guarantees the people’s right to own and bear arms for their defense.

3rd Amendment: Citizens cannot be forced to quarter soldiers during times of peace.

4th Amendment: Citizens cannot be forced to subject themselves to seizure and search without a search warrant and probable cause.

5th Amendment: Prohibits abuse of governmental authority in legal procedures. Establishes rules for indictment by eminent domain and grand jury. Guarantees the due process rights. Protects citizens from self-incrimination and double jeopardy.

6th Amendment: Guarantees fair and speedy jury trial and the rights to know the accusation, the accuser, and to find counsel and witnesses.

7th Amendment: Reserves individuals’ rights to jury trial depending on the civil case, and cases already examined by not be re-opened by another court.

8th Amendment: Forbids exorbitant bails and fines and punishment that is unusual or cruel.

9th Amendment: Reserves the rights of citizens which are not specifically mentioned by the U.S. Constitution.

10th Amendment: Reserves powers that are not given to the U.S. government under the Constitution, nor prohibited to a State of the U.S., to the people and the States.

11th Amendment: State sovereign immunity. States are protected from suits by citizens living in another state or foreigners that do not reside within the state borders. Ratified: Feb. 7, 1795

12th Amendment: Modifies and clarifies the procedure for electing vice-presidents and presidents.

13th Amendment: Except as punishment for criminal offense, forbids forced-slavery and involuntary servitude.

14th Amendment: Details Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Citizenship Clause, and clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

15th Amendment: Reserves citizens the suffrage rights regardless of their race, color, or previous slave status.

16th Amendment: Reserves the U.S. government the right to tax income.

17th Amendment: Establishes popular voting as the process under which senators are elected.

18th Amendment: Denies the sale and consumption of alcohol.

19th Amendment: Reserves women’s suffrage rights.

20th Amendment: also known as the “lame duck amendment,” establishes date of term starts for Congress (January 3) & the President (January 20).

21st Amendment: Details the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. State laws over alcohol are to remain.

22nd Amendment: Limit the terms that an individual can be elected as president (at most two terms). Individuals who have served over two years of someone else’s term may not be elected more than once.

23rd Amendment: Reserves the right of citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for their own Electors for presidential elections.

24th Amendment: citizens cannot be denied the suffrage rights for not paying a poll tax or any other taxes.

25th Amendment: establishes the procedures for a successor of a President.

26th Amendment: Reserves the right for citizens 18 and older to vote.

27th Amendment: Denies any laws that vary the salaries of Congress members until the beginning of the next terms of office for Representatives.

__________________
“What we need in this country today is more courage and more belief in the things that we have.”- Thomas J. Watson

I am confused about British History & US History. Which one is more interesting, scoring and easily digestible? Please guide

I've never tried opening the link for British History. Never found myself fit for the BH. May be its more interesting, scoring than US History but I feel this (BH) is not my cup of tea.

__________________
“What we need in this country today is more courage and more belief in the things that we have.”- Thomas J. Watson