the only dissent in the ruling came from justice hugo l. black who opposed the legislation because he felt exceeded the textual reach of the constitution. in his dissent, he explained, “there is no reason to read into the constitution meanings it did not have when it was adopted and which have not been put into place.” while he would have sustained most of the law, he would have struck down the section 5 preclearance provisions.section 5, by providing that some of the states cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless. one of the most basic premises upon which our structure of government was founded was that the federal government was to have certain specific and limited powers and no others, and all other power was to be reserved either 'to the states respectively, or to the people.' certainly if all the provisions of our constitution which limit the power of the federal government and reserve other power to the states are to mean anything, they mean at least that the states have power to pass laws and amend their constitutions without first sending their officials hundreds of miles away to beg federal authorities to approve them.