Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think this point is stressed enough. There were already existing laws in place that covered the rights of all citizens, the government simply wasn't enforcing it.
Civil Rights Acts made it appear like those rights didn't exist before then, when they were encoded in the Constitution already.
You've got that a little cockeyed. There were laws that expressly allowed discrimination, e.g. "Jim Crow" laws, "separate but equal (sic)" schools and other facilities, miscegenation laws, etc.
In a free market he doesnt mean that business would survive its the point that its your private probably and the constitution protects that right. Government services and public, parks, land, etc are another story. I can assure most people will not be eating at the no blacks resturant.
You've got that a little cockeyed. There were laws that expressly allowed discrimination, e.g. "Jim Crow" laws, "separate but equal (sic)" schools and other facilities, miscegenation laws, etc.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course I know Jim Crow laws expressly allowed discrimination, I didn't say otherwise in my post. My point was that Jim Crow laws were violating rights that already existed in the Constitution for all citizens, but weren't being enforced.
My point is, all of the horrible laws you listed were already unconstitutional. Brown v. Board proved that. The Civil Rights Acts were simply the mechanism created for enforcing the Constitutional rights of minorities. People seem to think the Act itself gave rights to Black Americans, but it didn't. I have to make that distinction because if people keep assuming this, it makes it seem like the Constitution doesn't apply to Black Americans, so an extra law was needed.
I don't think this point is stressed enough. There were already existing laws in place that covered the rights of all citizens, the government simply wasn't enforcing it.
Civil Rights Acts made it appear like those rights didn't exist before then, when they were encoded in the Constitution already.
What were the existing laws that the federal government chose not to enforce?
We can argue all we want about from whence rights come from, but at the end of the day, if the government doesn't ensure you the ability to exercise your rights, then those rights are pretty useless.
What were the existing laws that the federal government chose not to enforce?
We can argue all we want about from whence rights come from, but at the end of the day, if the government doesn't ensure you the ability to exercise your rights, then those rights are pretty useless.
The Constitution.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph, I've already acknowledged that.
What were the existing laws that the federal government chose not to enforce?
We can argue all we want about from whence rights come from, but at the end of the day, if the government doesn't ensure you the ability to exercise your rights, then those rights are pretty useless.
Sort of a brief history of interpretations of the 14th Amendment and its extension of the Bill of Rights to the states. I believe if not for the Civil Rights Act the Supreme Court was within a decade of declaring Jim Crow laws unconstitutional. Once individuals were no longer forced to segregate the free market would have begun the desegregation process. The color most important to most businessmen is green.
Why do people actually believe that if there wasn't a law against businesses discriminating against Blacks, then all of the sudden, businesses would put up "No Blacks" signs? Any business can easily get around the Civil Rights Act by simply making their business private and making all customers apply for membership. They could then deny membership to any Black person. Has this happened? No. So why do so many keep insisting that businesses across America are itching to exclude Blacks?
What do you gain from voting for Obama.....
would be my question, black or not.
Not much, but my point was, I have no real reason to vote for Paul because of his stance on "No Blacks" signs. I have no reason because it doesn't help ME!!
Not much, but my point was, I have no real reason to vote for Paul because of his stance on "No Blacks" signs. I have no reason because it doesn't help ME!!
See, the thing is this...
It's not about supporting a guy who says "Sure, go ahead and put up a no blacks sign". It's about supporting the owner of the business who wants to run the business according to their views. IF the market rejects it (which, IMO, a place like that would..), it will fail miserably.
The other thing you need to realize, it's NOT just "No blacks allowed!" A black person, or ANYONE, can start a business and rightfully says "NO WHITES". Once again, the market will decide if it's a great business move or not.
I personally will not support any stores that would do that, but I respect them wanting to run their own business the way they want to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
