Eric Holder

[origen01]

Originally Posted by Aa7777

How did you know that stuff was classified under executive privilege in the first place?

Because that's the shit Darrell Issa WANTS to know (facepalm). Hence the contempt vote! Go read a book..

[Aa7777]

What is a book?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Why what a fine fellow you are. For trying I mean.

All I want is the fucking truth about this; people died, don't forget, and a screw up this big needs to be aired. That's all. If Holder has nothing to hide for Obama then let him open up. Politics be damned.

But we both know that won't happen.

No shit genius. People are dying in Mexico because guns are being bought in the US and sold to Mexican drug cartels.

How many guns are entering illegally and how many people are dying?

I bet you can run your mouth all day and never even know those two facts.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by origen01

Wow. You know nothing about this situation.

Congress does not know the names of the agents involved in the gunwalking. That information is classified under executive privilege.

You sure pegged him correctly. All he really wants to do play internet tough guy.

But as far as looking at the actual facts no he won't do that. Running his mouth is just so much easier.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No shit genius. People are dying in Mexico because guns are being bought in the US and sold to Mexican drug cartels.

How many guns are entering illegally and how many people are dying?

I bet you can run your mouth all day and never even know those two facts.

I tell ya what stumbler. I think it is way past time to stop the flow of drugs and guns across our border.

I think instead of having out troops in Afghanistan, we should bring them home and put them on the US-Mexico border and stop the drugs, guns and violence.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

I tell ya what stumbler. I think it is way past time to stop the flow of drugs and guns across our border.

I think instead of having out troops in Afghanistan, we should bring them home and put them on the US-Mexico border and stop the drugs, guns and violence.

Has that worked in Afghanistan you ignorant, stupid, brainwashed parrot?

Or is there a thriving Poppy and heroine trade as well as thousands of people killed for more than 10 years now?

Once again you prove for all to see what a fool you really are.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Has that worked in Afghanistan you ignorant, stupid, brainwashed parrot?

Or is there a thriving Poppy and heroine trade as well as thousands of people killed for more than 10 years now?

Once again you prove for all to see what a fool you really are.

You are one stupid fuck aren't you? We did not go to Afghanistan to combat the illegal drug production you inbred dolt.

In fact, the US troops were told to ignore the poppy fields and all of the drug production going on.

Now why must you come on here and act so immature and down right stupid?



And on ABC news.... Go figure

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No shit genius. People are dying in Mexico because guns are being bought in the US and sold to Mexican drug cartels.

How many guns are entering illegally and how many people are dying?

I bet you can run your mouth all day and never even know those two facts.

Dude;
Get your oxygen mask back on. The issue isn't how many people are dying because of the drug cartels buying guns.......the issue is..........they are dying, and the GUNS that kill some of them are guns our government intentionally let cross the border.........so they could, you know, stop the cartels............

So again, all I want to know is what the Obama administration knew about this, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

Executive privilege my ass............

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Dude;
Get your oxygen mask back on. The issue isn't how many people are dying because of the drug cartels buying guns.......the issue is..........they are dying, and the GUNS that kill some of them are guns our government intentionally let cross the border.........so they could, you know, stop the cartels............

So again, all I want to know is what the Obama administration knew about this, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

Executive privilege my ass............

But you are lying.

Now the question is whether you know that or not and I say you do actually know you're lying.

Because you don't want to know shit. All you want to do is try and stir it.

You're questions have been asked and answered. Fraud.

PS Besides weren't you there? If we are to believe your posts you've been just about everywhere else.

[Druidoak]

Ding, Ding, Ding fighters return to your corners. Reality check in progress!

Reality 1: Sting operations go sideways all the time.

Reality 2: Cops die in the line of duty! It sucks but that is a fact.

Reality 3: Who is at fault? Everyone and noone. The real fault is with the system, under funding and under manned. Laws that enforcment agencies have to abide by that the bad guys don't.

Reality 4: If it was not an election year it never would of got any play.

Reality 5: The only reason for the big push for more documents is someone is very worried about being involved in the investigation. Either a congressman or a congressman's buddy.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

Ding, Ding, Ding fighters return to your corners. Reality check in progress!

Reality 1: Sting operations go sideways all the time.

Reality 2: Cops die in the line of duty! It sucks but that is a fact.

Reality 3: Who is at fault? Everyone and noone. The real fault is with the system, under funding and under manned. Laws that enforcment agencies have to abide by that the bad guys don't.

Reality 4: If it was not an election year it never would of got any play.

Reality 5: The only reason for the big push for more documents is someone is very worried about being involved in the investigation. Either a congressman or a congressman's buddy.

Actually I agree with your assessment.

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Actually I agree with your assessment.

Son-of-a-Bitch, hell froze over and I didn't get the memo!

[stumbler]

This is what makes Eric Holder somewhat of a hero to me. Even with everything the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress are throwing at him he manages to preserve against what I feel is one of the greatest injustices the wealthy conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers have tried to pull off in more than 50 years.

Eric Holder: Voter ID Laws Are 'Poll Taxes'

HOUSTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday he opposes a new photo ID requirement in Texas elections because it would be harmful to minority voters.


In remarks to the NAACP in Houston, the attorney general said the Justice Department "will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious right."


Under the law passed in Texas, Holder said that "many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them – and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them."


"We call those poll taxes," Holder added spontaneously, drawing applause as he moved away from the original text of his speech with a reference to a fee used in some Southern states after slavery's abolition to disenfranchise black people.


The 24th amendment to the constitution made that type of tax illegal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1662847.html

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

This is what makes Eric Holder somewhat of a hero to me. Even with everything the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress are throwing at him he manages to preserve against what I feel is one of the greatest injustices the wealthy conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers have tried to pull off in more than 50 years.

Eric Holder: Voter ID Laws Are 'Poll Taxes'




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1662847.html

You think one must be "wealthy" in order to obtain a photo ID? Bahhahahahahahhahaah!!!!!

Wow, I didn't think it was possible. But you have shown time and time again that you are far more stupid than anyone could ever imagine.

[CS natureboy]

Hey stumbler, what about all the other things people need a photo ID for?

What is Holder (the retard) going to do about that?

You know, like driving a car.

Cashing a check.

Opening a bank account.

Getting on a plane.

Buying alcohol

Buying tobacco

Rent an apartment

Purchase a firearm

Get a marriage license

Students (High school and College)

Make any large credit card purchase

Get a loan

But lets not forget our own government enacts all of these social welfare programs that are intended for the poorest citizens (you know, the one's stumbler thinks can't get or don't have an ID) yet they are required to establish identity prior to receiving the welfare benefits and government assistance. If the these people really could not acquire an ID because they did not have the means to, that would mean they would starve on the streets because they could not qualify for government assistance. Obviously this is not the case. Nor is it the case that these people cannot provide an ID to vote.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Hey stumbler, what about all the other things people need a photo ID for?

What is Holder (the retard) going to do about that?

You know, like driving a car.

Cashing a check.

Opening a bank account.

Getting on a plane.

Buying alcohol

Buying tobacco

Rent an apartment

Purchase a firearm

Get a marriage license

Students (High school and College)

Make any large credit card purchase

Get a loan

But lets not forget our own government enacts all of these social welfare programs that are intended for the poorest citizens (you know, the one's stumbler thinks can't get or don't have an ID) yet they are required to establish identity prior to receiving the welfare benefits and government assistance. If the these people really could not acquire an ID because they did not have the means to, that would mean they would starve on the streets because they could not qualify for government assistance. Obviously this is not the case. Nor is it the case that these people cannot provide an ID to vote.

None of those are protected by the one person one vote constitutional guarantee. This is the very reason why its a government of the people.

And you're a phoney hypocrite that thinks being an American citizen means you're white lie you you scared little boy.

PS you ignorant non-fucking brainwashed parrot every one of those is states rights you fool.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

PS you ignorant non-fucking brainwashed parrot every one of those is states rights you fool.

PS, huh retard?

Banking

Getting on a plane.

Buying alcohol

Buying tobacco

Purchasing a firearm

All regulated by the federal government you dolt.

Must you show case your stupidity with every post you make????

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

None of those are protected by the one person one vote constitutional guarantee. This is the very reason why its a government of the people.

Are you just making things up again you phony retard? Or are you just too stupid to know any better?

There is NO "one person one vote constitutional guarantee" you retarded lying liberal puppet dancer....

And besides, it has nothing to do with voter ID......

[shootersa]

CMON now
Lay off Stumbler

He and Eric Holder know minorities are the only people on the planet who don't have IDs. The rest of us are stupid/don't care/racist

And besides, Only conservative/republican/teabaggers have IDS anyway.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

CMON now
Lay off Stumbler

He and Eric Holder know minorities are the only people on the planet who don't have IDs. The rest of us are stupid/don't care/racist

And besides, Only conservative/republican/teabaggers have IDS anyway.

No, just brainwashed parrots that will believe anything that suits your own prejudices and feeds your fear and hate.

[r34skilyne]

Originally Posted by Capnip-Everdeen

Do you think he will resign?

The only way he "may" resign is if Obama loses reelection.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by r34skilyne

The only way he "may" resign is if Obama loses reelection.

Nope, I don't think so. Once President Obama is reelected I think Eric Holder, just like Hillary Clinton, may have had enough and will get the fuck out of the political and character assassination cross hairs and do something else.

And if they do I will thank them for their service and respect their desire to return to private life. Holder because he's an honest and dedicated man but not stupid enough to put up with the conservative/Republican/Tea Bagger congressional hearings.

But Clinton because she's been on a dead run for four years in a world that is constantly blowing apart at the seams. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been nothing short of amazing to me and I know I've never seen any secretary of State that has done more and achieved more. She's got more than President Obama's back, she's got America's backbone, and showed it.

[stumbler]

Voter ID Laws Are the Last Gasp of a Fading GOP Strategy

Earlier this week I wrote about the long-standing hope of Democrats that demographic changes are working in their favor and will soon create a durable national Dem majority. There are several moving parts to this theory, but the two big ones are (a) young people are trending Democratic, and (b) the Dem-leaning nonwhite population is getting bigger and bigger. As far as I know, Republicans don't really deny that these things are happening. After all, the trend in the youth vote jumps out in every poll, and the growing nonwhite share of the population is regularly front-page news. George Bush and Karl Rove, who desperately wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration bill in 2006 in order to stanch the flow of Hispanic votes into the Democratic column, knew perfectly well how important this was.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...g-gop-strategy

[origen01]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Are you just making things up again you phony retard? Or are you just too stupid to know any better?

There is NO "one person one vote constitutional guarantee" you retarded lying liberal puppet dancer....

huh? Then what do you call the 14th Amendment, retard?

You're so fucking stoopid. I'm surprised I actually took the time to respond to your bullshit.

Where is tenguy? The current Republican flock on this forum are just a bunch of moronic pussies....

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by origen01

huh? Then what do you call the 14th Amendment, retard?

You're so fucking stoopid. I'm surprised I actually took the time to respond to your bullshit.

Where is tenguy? The current Republican flock on this forum are just a bunch of moronic pussies....

The Republican I really miss is ElCasanova.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

huh? Then what do you call the 14th Amendment, retard?

You're so fucking stoopid. I'm surprised I actually took the time to respond to your bullshit.

Where is tenguy? The current Republican flock on this forum are just a bunch of moronic pussies....

Wow you are such I stupid fuck I shouldn't even respond to your stupidity.

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about a "one vote one person right"

But seeing how really over the top retarded you are, it's no surprise you lack the ability read or comprehend what you read.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

Where is tenguy? The current Republican flock on this forum are just a bunch of moronic pussies....

Hey punk, if you want to see a really big pussy, just look in the mirror

[origen01]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Wow you are such I stupid fuck I shouldn't even respond to your stupidity.

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about a "one vote one person right"

But seeing how really over the top retarded you are, it's no surprise you lack the ability read or comprehend what you read.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=369&invol=186

Sweet dreams, idiot.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by origen01

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=369&invol=186

Sweet dreams, idiot.

Damn that was a very interesting read.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=369&invol=186

Sweet dreams, idiot.

Again you prove you are a phony and a dolt. Your link only serves to prove this as well.

You can't back up the foolish lies you post. So now you post links to information that exposes you for the ignorant fool you are.

Well done retard.....

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Again you prove you are a phony and a dolt. Your link only serves to prove this as well.

You can't back up the foolish lies you post. So now you post links to information that exposes you for the ignorant fool you are.

Well done retard.....

Talk about a phony. You're the one parroting false propaganda and displaying really profound ignorance in the face of facts.

Because the link most definitely explains the one person one vote constitutional requirement.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Talk about a phony. You're the one parroting false propaganda and displaying really profound ignorance in the face of facts.

Because the link most definitely explains the one person one vote constitutional requirement.

Prove it liar. Let's see "the facts".

Post the text. You have the link....

[origen01]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Again you prove you are a phony and a dolt. Your link only serves to prove this as well.

You can't back up the foolish lies you post. So now you post links to information that exposes you for the ignorant fool you are.

Well done retard.....

We come, finally, to the ultimate inquiry whether our precedents as to what constitutes a nonjusticiable "political question" bring the case before us under the umbrella of that doctrine. A natural beginning is to note whether any of the common characteristics which we have been able to identify and label descriptively are present. We find none: The question here is the consistency of state action with the Federal Constitution. We have no question decided, or to be decided, by a political branch of government coequal with this Court. Nor do we risk embarrassment of our government abroad, or grave disturbance at home 54 if we take issue with Tennessee as to the constitutionality of her action here challenged. Nor need the appellants, in order to succeed in this action, ask the Court to enter upon policy determinations for which judicially manageable standards are lacking. Judicial standards under the Equal Protection Clause are well developed and familiar, and it has been open to courts since the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to determine, if on the particular facts they must, that a discrimination reflects no policy, but simply arbitrary and capricious action.

-Baker v Carr (1962)

and in

''We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with the votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.''

-Reynolds v Sims (1964)

Go to law school. Oh wait--you're not smart enough.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Prove it liar. Let's see "the facts".

Post the text. You have the link....

Ok you're on you little shit heel frightened little parrot. I'll wipe your nose with it you phony bluffing non-fucker.

I'll spend hours on it if I have to just to prove what a stupid and ignorant (remember that's two different things) brainwashed TeaBagger you really are.

Days if I have to ............ except ........... wait just a second ......... never mind.

What Origen01 said you pitiful fool.

Originally Posted by origen01

and in

Go to law school. Oh wait--you're not smart enough.

http://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p...6&postcount=83

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

and in

Go to law school. Oh wait--you're not smart enough.

Again, this has nothing to with what you claimed in you post.

Nor does it say anything about voter ID or "one person one vote constitutional guarantee."

LMAO, so just keep posting origen01, I enjoy laughing at your stupidity!

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Ok you're on you little shit heel frightened little parrot. I'll wipe your nose with it you phony bluffing non-fucker.

I'll spend hours on it if I have to just to prove what a stupid and ignorant (remember that's two different things) brainwashed TeaBagger you really are.

Days if I have to ............ except ........... wait just a second ......... never mind.

What Origen01 said you pitiful fool.



http://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p...6&postcount=83

Come on pussy, back up your weak delusional lies with some facts....

Or just let stand the fact that you can't back up what you post.

Which brings us to the fact that you are a coward, liar and a fool.....

[origen01]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Again, this has nothing to with what you claimed in you post.

Nor does it say anything about voter ID or "one person one vote constitutional guarantee."

LMAO, so just keep posting origen01, I enjoy laughing at your stupidity!

CS, what do you think "one person, one vote" means? It means that EVERY vote cast in an election should have the SAME impact. The US Supreme Court first declared this right under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment first in Baker v Carr and has re-affirmed it dozens of times since. Districts CANNOT be drawn to dilute the impact of an individual votes or groups of votes.

I didn't enter this discussion in regards to voter ID laws--I was just saying you are dreadfully wrong about the idea that "one man, one vote" has no constitutional foundation. The Supreme Court has traced it back to 14th Amendment and Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution dozens of times. The rulings since Baker v Carr laid the groundwork for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in which redistricting or voting registration laws that have a DISPARATE IMPACT on a specific class of voters also violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

CS, what do you think "one person, one vote" means? It means that EVERY vote cast in an election should have the SAME impact. The US Supreme Court first declared this right under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment first in Baker v Carr and has re-affirmed it dozens of times since. Districts CANNOT be drawn to dilute the impact of an individual votes or groups of votes.

I didn't enter this discussion in regards to voter ID laws--I was just saying you are dreadfully wrong about the idea that "one man, one vote" has no constitutional foundation. The Supreme Court has traced it back to 14th Amendment and Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution dozens of times. The rulings since Baker v Carr laid the groundwork for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in which redistricting or voting registration laws that have a DISPARATE IMPACT on a specific class of voters also violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

You really have no idea of what you are talking about do you?
14th Amendment Summary

What is the Fourteenth Amendment and what does it mean?

By Martin Kelly, About.com Guide


The 14th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 during the Reconstruction era. It, along with the 13th and 15th amendments are collectively known as the Reconstruction amendments. However, of those three, the 14th is the most complicated and the one that has had the more unforeseen effects. Its broad goal was to ensure that the Civil Rights Act passed in 1866 would remain valid ensuring that "all persons born in the United States...excluding Indians not taxed...." were citizens and were to be given "full and equal benefit of all laws." (Quotes from the Civil Rights Act of 1866) However, it went beyond the provisions of the Civil Rights Act in many ways. Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment




Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:

1. State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

Over time, numerous lawsuits have arisen that have referenced the 14th amendment. The fact that the amendment uses the word state in the Privileges and Immunities clause along with interpretation of the Due Process Clause has meant that state as well as federal power is subject to the Bill of Rights. Further, the courts have interpretated the word "person" to include corporations. Therefore, they too are protected by "due process" along with being granted "equal protection."http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...nt-Summary.htm

[origen01]

No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

Then what the fuck is this, asshole? Huh? What is it? It is this clause that led the Supreme Court to declare the principle of "one man, one vote".

Here is the case brief, since quoting from the actual opinion is too much for you to understand. You better crawl back into your little hole, buddy, because you are way out of your league. I read political philisophy books for fun, scumbag....

Summary of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962).
Facts

Charles Baker (P) was a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. Baker filed suit against Joe Carr, the Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker’s complaint alleged that the Tennessee legislature had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, in violation of the Tennessee State Constitution which required redistricting according to the federal census every 10 years. Baker, who lived in an urban part of the state, asserted that the demographics of the state had changed shifting a greater proportion of the population to the cities, thereby diluting his vote in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Baker sought an injunction prohibiting further elections, and sought the remedy of reapportionment or at-large elections. The district court denied relief on the grounds that the issue of redistricting posed a political question and would therefore not be heard by the court.
Issues

1. Do federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment?
2. What is the test for resolving whether a case presents a political question?

Holding and Rule (Brennan)

1. Yes. Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment.
2. The factors to be considered by the court in determining whether a case presents a political question are:
   1. Is there a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (i.e. foreign affairs or executive war powers)?
   2. Is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue?
   3. The impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.
   4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.
   5. Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made?
   6. Would attempting to resolve the matter create the possibility of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question?

The political question doctrine is based in the separation of powers and whether a case is justiciable is determined on a case by cases basis. In regards to foreign relations, if there has been no conclusive governmental action regarding an issue then a court can construe a treaty and decide a case. Regarding the dates of the duration of hostilities, when there needs to be definable clarification for a decision, the court may be able to decide the case.


The court held that this case was justiciable and did not present a political question. The case did not present an issue to be decided by another branch of the government. The court noted that judicial standards under the Equal Protection Clause were well developed and familiar, and it had been open to courts since the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to determine if an act is arbitrary and capricious and reflects no policy. When a question is enmeshed with any of the other two branches of the government, it presents a political question and the Court will not answer it without further clarification from the other branches.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by origen01

Then what the fuck is this, asshole? Huh? What is it? It is this clause that led the Supreme Court to declare the principle of "one man, one vote".

Here is the case brief, since quoting from the actual opinion is too much for you to understand. You better crawl back into your little hole, buddy, because you are way out of your league. I read political philisophy books for fun, scumbag....

You are a fucking dolt. All you have done is post lawsuits from the past that have made reference to the 14th Amendment.

You have proven with out a doubt that you are immature and ignorant in regards to this subject.

Come on back after you finish 3rd grade.....

[origen01]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

You are a fucking dolt. All you have done is post lawsuits from the past that have made reference to the 14th Amendment.

You don't make any effort. That's why I hate debating you.

What the hell is your problem? I have not posted just any lawsuits, I have posted US Supreme Court decisions! You want me to post the federal statutes from the Voting Rights Act guaranteeing equal protection?

SEC. 5. Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.