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.
Judge Harlan was right, this was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, along with the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, & Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Agree, the Plessy decision was about the worst decision ever. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Neither the states or the federal government should have ever had the power to force businesses, or individuals, to either segregate or desegregate.
What you ignore is the difference between the Barry Goldwater conservative versus the George Wallace conservative. Both types oppose the CRA of 1964 but for very different reasons.
You do not have to be a racist to oppose the expansion of the federal government into areas it has never been before. Nor do you have to be a racist to oppose an action on constitutional grounds.
Just because individuals share a vote on an issue does not mean that they came about voting that way for the same reason.
Stop trying to taint every one who opposes the CRA of 1964 as racist.
Good point, and there's further reasons to oppose it. The real intent and implementation of it. In the wording of the law the CRA is suppose to protect whites, males, Christians etc equally as it does other members in those classes. It absolutely does not. It provides more government protections and benefits for blacks and nonwhites, etc. That was the real intent of the liberal progressive that concocted and support it.
The '64 CRA and '65 Immigration Act were pushed for with the intent to displace, replace and to steal the country away from average whites. That's the real motivation it was implemented and that was it's real intent. It is essentially racism.
Agree, the Plessy decision was about the worst decision ever. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Neither the states or the federal government should have ever had the power to force businesses, or individuals, to either segregate or desegregate.
I can't agree here though. What if 60% of whites wanted to be separate? What if 90%? And what if 60% of blacks wanted to be separate? Should the minority decide for the majority?
If you're saying the government should honor and enforce property rights and manager rights for those who want to segregate and allow other property owners and managers to integrate, then I can agree with that. To be honest that's what the US had overall in the big picture. Segregation varied and in large parts wasn't segregated by government at all. We went to universal forced integration and that's not right.
But why should separate have to be equal? We're integrated but still not equal either. It's not white people's responsibility or even ability to make every non-white group "equal" or better than them. That's between a people and between nature and evolution.
An example of a principled compromise was described by Justice Harlan in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883:
"...Justice Harlan challenged the Court's narrow interpretation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in his dissent for all five of the cases. As he noted, Congress was attempting to overcome the refusal of the states to protect the rights denied to African Americans that white citizens took as their birthright. ..."
The principled compromise didn't happen then as Justice Harlan was the lone dissent, the other 8 Justces opposed the guarantees made by the provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 & the Civil Rights Act of 1968 were based on the CRA of 1875.
The compromise was to accept the inherent dignity of all human beings.
The principle was "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ..."
Dr. King presented the following speech at the New York Civil War Centennial Commission’s Emancipation Proclamation Observance, New York City, September 12, 1962, Emancipation Proclamation Centennial Address:
Quote:
...The Declaration of Independence proclaimed to a world, organized politically and spiritually around the concept of the inequality of man, that the dignity of human personality was inherent in man as a living being. The Emancipation Proclamation was the offspring of the Declaration of Independence. It was a constructive use of the force of law to uproot a social order which sought to separate liberty from a segment of humanity. ...
Agree, the Plessy decision was about the worst decision ever. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Neither the states or the federal government should have ever had the power to force businesses, or individuals, to either segregate or desegregate.
Some folks said the same thing about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 for the same reason.
Judge Harlan was the lone dissent on the Supreme Court decision.
From what I understand about him, his was an evolved position as he once owned people as property & was a former defender of the 'peculiar institution'.
CRA wasn't really about civil rights as much as the government having more control and more power and like always money and a vote pandering ploy to blacks. Big business saw it as more profitable to integrate. The commerce clause was used as the basis to justify the government dictating to private property business owners.
There are probably some that latched on wanting to see non-whites advance, maybe even they're supremacist.
The government should've stayed neutral and let the market work itself out, and let people thrive or fail as individuals.
CRA wasn't really about civil rights as much as the government having more control and more power and like always money and a vote pandering ploy to blacks. Big business saw it as more profitable to integrate. The commerce clause was used as the basis to justify the government dictating to private property business owners.
There are probably some that latched on wanting to see non-whites advance, maybe even they're supremacist.
The government should've stayed neutral and let the market work itself out, and let people thrive or fail as individuals.
Still parroting the White Nationalists, Racial 'Realists' & Supremacists?
Libertarians & Race Realism by Gilbert Cavanaugh, American Renaissance, October 11, 2013
Still parroting the White Nationalists, Racial 'Realists' & Supremacists?
Libertarians & Race Realism by Gilbert Cavanaugh, American Renaissance, October 11, 2013
...
Whatever, you're the one parroting the same old labels and insults. Progressives are all the same. You put forth a valid argument that they have no valid argument against and always the same predictable response. Progressives are the ones with obsession about race and not equal opportunity for the individual to fail or succeed. Progressive theories and blaming don't hold up and they're the ones with the questionable motives.
Whatever, you're the one parroting the same old labels and insults. Progressives are all the same. You put forth a valid argument that they have no valid argument against and always the same predictable response. Progressives are the ones with obsession about race and not equal opportunity for the individual to fail or succeed. Progressive theories and blaming don't hold up and they're the ones with the questionable motives.
Do you need a safe place to heal your wounds? Let's hope it includes some reality checks. How's the delusions of grandeur thing working out?
Is white nationalist an insult? Is racial 'realist' an insult? How about racial supremacist?
Please let me know how to protect your sensitivities.
Do you need a safe place to heal your wounds? Let's hope it includes some reality checks. How's the delusions of grandeur thing working out?
Is white nationalist an insult? Is racial 'realist' an insult? How about racial supremacist?
Please let me know how to protect your sensitivities.
No, you're labeling and attempting to personally insult which I thought was against the rules. Is globalist an insult? Is anti-white racist an insult? No, nationalist, racial realist or racial supremacist are not insults per se in my opinion, but it's well known it's intended to insult and label primarily white conservatives when they state any non-Progressive position. Labeling posters or ethnic groups is personal attacks.
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.
