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.
IF anyone is actually interested in what the law actually is, instead of what they think that the law is then I have posted it below.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. is very conservative, this is the interpretation of the supreme court. So to change the law you would have to change the constitution. Particularly the 14th amendment. So if you want, to be able to tell blacks they can't eat at a resturaunt, do a constitutional amendment.
This is not going to happen so why are we even talking about it?
The most prominent civil rights legislation since reconstruction is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Decisions of the Supreme Court at the time limited Congressional enforcement of the 14th Amendment to state, rather than individual, action. (Since 1964 the Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the 14th Amendment in some situations to individuals discriminating on their own). Therefore, in order to reach the actions of individuals, Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code. Discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported by the state is prohibited. See42 U.S.C. § 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, and trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation
IF anyone is actually interested in what the law actually is, instead of what they think that the law is then I have posted it below.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. is very conservative, this is the interpretation of the supreme court. So to change the law you would have to change the constitution. Particularly the 14th amendment. So if you want, to be able to tell blacks they can't eat at a resturaunt, do a constitutional amendment.
This is not going to happen so why are we even talking about it?
The most prominent civil rights legislation since reconstruction is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Decisions of the Supreme Court at the time limited Congressional enforcement of the 14th Amendment to state, rather than individual, action. (Since 1964 the Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the 14th Amendment in some situations to individuals discriminating on their own). Therefore, in order to reach the actions of individuals, Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code. Discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported by the state is prohibited. See42 U.S.C. § 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, and trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not only unconstitutional, but it never reached it's original objective.
This is due simply because you can't force people not to be racist. Society as a whole has gotten past racism and looks down upon those who have racist beliefs, but you can't force someone to believe something differently.
Like someone else said, they still kick blacks out of bars without the sign. How did that Act do any justice or complete its objective?
I'm not protesting too much. I'm stating historical fact.
You can't ignore the history of the United States. Nor
the laws that were placed and enforced at the Federal level. Nor statements made by past presidents.
Taking the legal interpretation Ron Paul has about private property rights and simply calling him a "racist" because of it" is really disingenuous.
I think your personally in denial about the racist history
of this very nation on both sides of the political aisle.
Your the one floating around doubt with statements like
he uses "code words" etc. You want him to be racist,
because it makes your argument for not agreeing with
him a slam dunk. Guess what, it doesn't.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not only unconstitutional, but it never reached it's original objective.
This is due simply because you can't force people not to be racist. Society as a whole has gotten past racism and looks down upon those who have racist beliefs, but you can't force someone to believe something differently.
Like someone else said, they still kick blacks out of bars without the sign. How did that Act do any justice or complete its objective?
Let me rephrase this for you. The Civil RIghts Act of 1964 is in fact Constitutional because the Supreme Court Says that it is Constitutional. Now, you may think that they are wrong and that is certainly your opinion that some share, but it is only your opinion. When you get appointed to the Supreme Court and have four of your like minded friends appointed, Maybe you can have it changed.
You are right you can't control people's thoughts, but you can regulate their actions. You can't make a hotel owner like black people, but you can make him not discriminate to customers based on skin color. I am sure that most people really don't care what people think. They are more concerned about what they do.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not only unconstitutional, but it never reached it's original objective.
This is due simply because you can't force people not to be racist. Society as a whole has gotten past racism and looks down upon those who have racist beliefs, but you can't force someone to believe something differently.
Like someone else said, they still kick blacks out of bars without the sign. How did that Act do any justice or complete its objective?
Considering where the country was prior to the Civil Right Act and where it is now there is no way it can be called a failure.
It was NEVER designed to end racism. It was designed to make discrimination based on race a federal crime and to give people legal recourse when such a crime occurs. By the measure and by the virture of the social advances made in the last 50 years it counts has one of the most significant pieces of legislature in American history.
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.
