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.
Did Georgia, in 1967, have a law outlawing black people from staying in hotels?
Or did 1 hotelier refuse service based upon his (apparently incorrect) interpretation of private property rights/commerce clause?
I don't know exactly when GA took their jim crow laws off the books officially. Or if it was only 1 hotelier....my guess being a native Georgian is there was more than one breaking the law.
I also don't know that he "misinterpreted" any constitutional provision. More likely still practicing racism and discrimination.
I can tell you that Brown v Board of Ed required schools to desgregate with all due speed in 1954. The schools in my very large GA county did not desegregate until 1969. All under the watchful eye of local and state govt that was intentionally slow walking implementing federal law. A not uncommon scenario in other states as well.
As for current examples, imo the Texas Heartbeat Law and other laws in red states which are attempting to make abortion illegal or difficult for women are examples. As well as lots of laws being passed in FL such as the so called Dont Say Gay bill......also similar copycat legislation in other states.
I think both the state and fed should stay out of the bedroom, as long as those in that bedroom are of legal age and are there willingly.
I still don't see where Sen Braun called for interracial marriage to be banned by saying it should be up to the states.
sort of - he certainly didn't call for it to be banned. What he said was "well, you can't take one issue and treat it as Federal when you want to say issues in general shouldn't be Federal."
If you believe interracial marriage is a states rights issue, you automatically leave open the possibility that a state will pass laws to ban it or otherwise discriminate against those in interracial marriages.
How is that difficult to understand? Especially when we know states have done exactly that in the past?
if anything is a states rights issue, then you have the option to rally against it at a closer and smaller level. Even if you don't "win", then you can get relief by moving to a state of your liking. That's the "legal principle".
If you make more things Federal, then you are at the whims of a majority of elected officials for the nation. You are further detached from advocacy. If a majority ... say the Repubs had a slim margin in the House, 50-50 in the Senate, and held the POTUS ... make a stupid Federal law - then it applies everywhere in the nation. There's nothing you can do.
Let's say CA was having businesses leave and citizens complain about their super-high gas tax. Those businesses and citizens can "vote with their feet". But let's imagine CA went to all their blue state friends and all the other D's in the House and Senate and said "Hey, we need you to raise the Federal tax because we're suffering." And so, the slim majority (+1 even), the 50-50 D Senate and the D POTUS said "Sure! We'll make the Federal gas tax equal to CA's, and you drop your gas tax." Then every single state would have to charge the Federal rate.
Another example of the fact if a left winger is speaking, they're writing fiction with their mouth. It's similar to how they looked at Florida's anti grooming bill then declared it the "don't say gay" bill.
if anything is a states rights issue, then you have the option to rally against it at a closer and smaller level. Even if you don't "win", then you can get relief by moving to a state of your liking. That's the "legal principle".
If you make more things Federal, then you are at the whims of a majority of elected officials for the nation. You are further detached from advocacy. If a majority ... say the Repubs had a slim margin in the House, 50-50 in the Senate, and held the POTUS ... make a stupid Federal law - then it applies everywhere in the nation. There's nothing you can do.
Let's say CA was having businesses leave and citizens complain about their super-high gas tax. Those businesses and citizens can "vote with their feet". But let's imagine CA went to all their blue state friends and all the other D's in the House and Senate and said "Hey, we need you to raise the Federal tax because we're suffering." And so, the slim majority (+1 even), the 50-50 D Senate and the D POTUS said "Sure! We'll make the Federal gas tax equal to CA's, and you drop your gas tax." Then every single state would have to charge the Federal rate.
Does any of that make sense?
Gas tax is not equivalent to fundamental human rights.
Further, I don't think the majority of people want to be moving all over the country every time their state decides to violate people's civil rights.
He did say yes to the question should be left up to the states. Perhaps he did not mean to say that but he clearly did.
Sure! What we had, historically, was a crazy patchwork. Harry Bridges, a longshoreman, sued in California to marry a Japanese woman and won. So a ban against interracial marriages was struck down there. However. southern states (and a northern one) still banned the practice. Virginia, holding on its historically inaccurate legends, banned interracial marriages except for descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas! Now, that's an exception! Japanese American filed an amicus brief in the Loving case and said that the laws affected them differently in different areas of the country.
You have to understand that the Lovings were convicted of a felony for marrying and banned from Virginia. Plus getting married surely is a personal right to be upheld by the Constitution and any laws affecting marriage would be subject to strict scrutiny under Constitutional principles.
Only SCOTUS is allowed the last word on Constitutional rights. Otherwise the US would be balkanized. Think of servicemen with foreign wives who could be transferred to some bases and not others! It would be an untenable situation.
Even if the IN legislator was just trumpeting states' rights, he had it wrong on this one.
I don't know exactly when GA took their jim crow laws off the books officially. Or if it was only 1 hotelier....my guess being a native Georgian is there was more than one breaking the law.
well, this was 1967? What was your age then, and what would your knee-jerk guess be?
Quote:
I also don't know that he "misinterpreted" any constitutional provision. More likely still practicing racism and discrimination.
oh, clearly he was. But there was something to it if it went all the way to SCOTUS.
Quote:
I can tell you that Brown v Board of Ed required schools to desgregate with all due speed in 1954. The schools in my very large GA county did not desegregate until 1969. All under the watchful eye of local and state govt that was intentionally slow walking implementing federal law. A not uncommon scenario in other states as well.
clearly, many school systems dragged their feet. And it took until at least the Civil Rights Act for Brown v Board to see legislated reality. How long does it take to implement most Federal laws across the land?
Quote:
As for current examples, imo the Texas Heartbeat Law and other laws in red states which are attempting to make abortion illegal or difficult for women are examples. As well as lots of laws being passed in FL such as the so called Dont Say Gay bill......also similar copycat legislation in other states.
neither/none of these involves human rights, which was your claim. They don't even involve civil rights.
Have any Parental Responsibility Act opponents threatened lawsuit over the Constitutionality of it? If yes, what was their legal reasoning?
When we want to know how to be racist, we'll just ask your repulsive party.
1. Owned almost all the slaves
2. Started the Klan
3. Executive Order 9066 which threw Americans in jail without due process, and based on ethnicity
4. democratic legislature passed every single Jim Crow law
5. voted against all 4 civil rights acts in a higher percentage than the republicans
6. Making racist voting laws because they think blacks cant vote on time or get a voter ID
Please don't repeat internet hoaxes.
1. Not true at all.
2. Demonstrably false
3.?
4. There were no Republican legislatures in Jim Crow states; however there were discriminatory laws in other states. Parochial schools were banned in WA, not in the south.
5. The difference was north vs. south and there were very few southern Republican legislators so a higher percentage was assured. The Civil Rights movement was a program of Democrats and Republican progressives; not conservatives in either party.
6. Republicans changed voting laws without showing a reason or finding and laws being violated. In NC the judge said that the new laws affected only Democrats and the poor 'with razor-like precision'.
Plus:
7. Republicans sure look defensive in making up things about Democrats and racism.
8. In 1960 California Republicans wanted as a plank in the national platform: "All Negroes should be shipped back to Africa". Cooler heads sank the proposal.
9. In 1924 there was a plank suggested at the Democratic convention to condemn the Klan. It lost by a single vote.
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.
