Ad
related to: the 15th amendment explained for dummies
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Court found in his favor on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, while not discussing his Fifteenth Amendment claim. [59] After Texas amended its statute to allow the political party's state executive committee to set voting qualifications, Nixon sued again; in Nixon v.
Text of the 15th Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
The Fifteenth Amendment was the last of three Reconstruction Amendments. The first two were ratified in 1865 and 1868, respectively. The 15th Amendment was a milestone for civil rights. The ...
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, [1] as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
The only amendment to be ratified through this method thus far is the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933. That amendment is also the only one that explicitly repeals an earlier one, the Eighteenth Amendment (ratified in 1919), establishing the prohibition of alcohol. [4] Congress has also enacted statutes governing the constitutional amendment process.
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides the right to not be discriminated against while voting on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude. In the view of some, the Grandfather Clause in the Oklahoma Constitution was void of racial discrimination since it looked at relatives prior to 1866 and not 1871 ...
A constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate (or a request for a convention by two-thirds of the states), and ratification by three-fourths of state ...
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]