|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Civil Rights Act of 1964 
#3025771 - 08/19/04 08:49 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I always used to consider this act to be a good thing, but now I'm not so sure. I certainly believe it is right to end segregation, but at what cost? In order to defend this act in court, the federal government radically reinterpreted the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. So what, you might say. Well, this new interpretation of that clause paved the way for Richard Nixon to pass the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, thus starting the War on Drugs. Granted, I don't have any better ideas on how the government could've tried ending segregation, but was this really worth it?
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
 Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
 Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: silversoul7]
#3026093 - 08/19/04 10:04 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
the problem with you smart people is you forget that the rest of us are dumb.
Your topic sounds interesting, but I honestly don't know enough about the history to discuss all the ramifications of the CRA '64, but if you provided a link, I'd read about it to engage in your thread.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: Skikid16]
#3026108 - 08/19/04 10:08 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: silversoul7]
#3026231 - 08/19/04 10:34 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Damn motherfucka, that shit is long. It may take me a day or two, but I'm getting through the beginning and I see this:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
So does that mean if I live in a house and I'm renting out 4 rooms, I can legally discriminate?
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: Skikid16]
#3026846 - 08/20/04 01:09 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
If you live in the building you can discriminate on any basis you so choose. That law is still valid today.
Think about it, if you want to rent a room out of your house you are basically going to discriminate anyway. You won't let the government dictate who is going to live with your wife and children.
If you own a condo and are looking for a roommate, you don't have to allow gay people or women to live on your property. They have no right to do so and you have every right to refuse them if you wish. The same also applies to people named Todd, if you so choose. Todd is a stupid name, and you should never live with Todd. But I digress...
It is your choice if you live there and it is your home. It couldn't be any other way. Any stand alone apartment complex is a different story however.
I have to admit that I have never read the Act. People of every race should be on eqaul footing before the law. We can never even hope to give some sort of cosmic equality, but we should be able to provide everyone equity and fairness in the way the game is played.
--------------------
Tastes just like chicken
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: JesusChrist]
#3026852 - 08/20/04 01:12 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I mean it does make sense, its just odd to see it laid out in legal terms.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: Skikid16]
#3026886 - 08/20/04 01:23 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I am surprised that they never mentioned Todd. That fucker stole my cat. We need laws against people named Todd.
--------------------
Tastes just like chicken
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: silversoul7]
#3028283 - 08/20/04 11:28 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
July 3, 2004
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican(in name alone) member of Congress from Texas.
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Re: Ancalagon]
#3028849 - 08/20/04 02:29 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Well said... why can't we get somebody like this in the whitehouse rather than the shmucks we have had for the last 12+ years.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1stimer
Ellis Dee
silversoul7
Edame
pattern
shogun221
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendal
