wat0n wrote:Please quote me on saying that. It justifies avoiding future claims of election fraud, and states should also provide free ID cards.
The actual effect is to disenfranchise legal voters, a disproportionately large number of which will be BIPOC. If you are going to claim these laws are justified, then that is what you need to justify.
If the claim is that these laws and their impact are justified because they will avoid future claims about voter fraud, that is a new argument. I think that is illogical. This is because we are currently seeing restrictions by the Florida government despite no actual threat. This shows that accusations of voter fraud do not need to have a factual or logical basis.
I'd still like to see the original source.
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php ... lt/7-4.pdf
it also mentions that “Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project”.
So, if a teacher uses materials or facts that are also mentioned in the 1619 project, that could be considered illegal.
So you want evidence like actual cases where that happened? It's as easy as looking at some civil rights era ones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._ ... _Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_ ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Car ... Katzenbach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._ ... ._Mayer_Co.
Will you finally prove your claims now?
I assume this is a series of civil rights cases where one example of discrimination was rooted out in each case.
My claim is that anti-discrimination law does not show that there is no racism in US law.
This is the only logical conclusion if we accept two premises:
1. There is a significant amount of racism embedded in US law, and
2. Anti-discrimination law has only challenged a fraction of this racism.
The first premise is easily seen by looking not only at US history, but also seeing how laws are used today.
These ten or so cases are then part of that fraction that has been addressed.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...