Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
by Michael ZakRand Paul’s controversial remarks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act illustrate what I have been saying for years, that Republicans would benefit tremendously from knowing and appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. That landmark legislation was the culmination of a century of efforts by Republicans to protect African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors. Let’s look at the facts.
On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill. Don’t let it fail.” In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.
Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
During the twenty years of the FDR and Truman administrations, the Democrats had refused to enact any civil rights legislation. In contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which had been written by his Attorney General, a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The original draft would have permitted the federal government to sue anyone violating another person’s constitutional rights, but this powerful provision would have to wait until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The bill had to be weakened considerably to secure enough Democrat votes to pass, so violations would be civil, not criminal offenses, and penalties were light. Vice President Richard Nixon helped overcome a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. The GOP then strengthened enforcement with its 1960 Civil Rights Act.
Clever strategizing had won him the support of most African-American voters, but it took President John Kennedy (D-MA) nearly two years to make good on even one of his promises to them. He refused to attend a dinner commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and turned down Martin Luther King’s invitation to speak at the March on Washington. He did name Thurgood Marshall to the federal bench, but that was to an appeals court in New York, far from the fray in southern states. Kennedy did not honor his campaign promise to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill soon after taking office.
While the Kennedy administration was ignoring its campaign pledges, the Republican minority in Congress introduced several bills to protect the constitutional rights of African-Americans. In January 1963, congressional Republicans introduced a sweeping civil rights bill to enact what Democrat opposition had prevented from being included in the 1957 and 1960 laws. Threatened by this initiative, the president finally acted. Hastily drafted in a single one-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what the GOP had introduced the month before. Many Democrats were preparing a protracted Senate filibuster of this civil rights bill, which was in a committee of the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th Amendment was insufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 Civil Rights Act had to be written in such a way as to rely on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning. The 1964 Act guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned racial discrimination by any entity receiving federal funding, thereby extending coverage to most every hospital, school and government contractor. Also banned was racial discrimination in unions and in companies with more than twenty-five employees. Enforcement provisions were much more rigorous than those of the 1957 and 1960 Acts.
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.
In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
Along with most other political leaders at the time, Johnson, credited Dirksen for getting the bill passed: “The Attorney General said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job… I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.” At the time, for instance, The Chicago Defender, a renowned African-American newspaper, praised Senator Dirksen for leading passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The struggle for civil rights was not finished, however, as most southern states remained under the control of segregationist Democrat governors, such as George Wallace (D-AL), Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox (D-GA). Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.
To quote from Back to Basics for the Republican Party, “The more we Republicans know about the history of our party, the more the Democrats will worry about the future of theirs.” See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
263 Comments
Scientists claim that a headless cockroach can only be expected to survive for 10 days.
Kentucky may have found the exception to the rule in Rand Paul!
This short satire is my video response to the good doctor:
http://bit.ly/asYks5
No it can't be the "We re-write history" media and the Dems say it's not so……Always remember one thing..Research and learn and then when they lie hit them between the eyes with facts…and then they will show you they are losing the debate with name calling and fear mongering….Americans are you tired of the left yet?
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
I am not a Libertarian and I wouldn't want to be one. I watched Rand Paul say what he said and it made sense to me. The government can regulate what it touches, but a private business should be able to decide for itself who it's going to serve. A good business man will serve the public without discrimination. There are a lot of people in this world that I do not like but if they want to spend money in my shop (if I had one) I'll gladly take their money and be nice to them as long as they are behaving themselves in my shop. We don't need the government telling us how to run a business and whom to do business with, the government needs business men telling them how to manage money and clients. The government cannot and does NOT have to NANNY all of us. Some of us can make a decision on our own
Last week I was in WI and got some shots of the Birth Place of the Republican Party http://picasaweb.google.com/ramoza11/RepublicanHo...
Stop confusing the liberals with facts! Conservatives are evil. Everyone knows it so it must be true.
/sarc off
No one is more threatened by the Civil Rights act and its ultimate enforcement than the the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. This would mean the end of their notorious careers of race baiting and class warfare.
SOCIAL JUSTICE is merely another form of racism. Were we to simply uphold and enforce the true meaning of our bill of rights and that of our constitution and allow everyone to enjoy the protections and the benefits of:
EQUAL JUSTICE and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Bring on the trolls.
Don't feed the trolls.
The extent that the GOP and the truth about the United States finally addressing the disequity of pre-1964 civil right in our country is an example of how a message can be suppressed and marginalized – with terrible consequenses.
The justice of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was dampened by LBJ's DISASTEROUS 1965 "Great Society" massive EXPANSION of the welfare state and ultimately the destruction of the nuclear black family and the eventual deaths of cities like Detroit.
So much good SNOWED UNDER by so much bad.
Democrats were obstructionists when it came to supporting the !964 CR legislation. Too bad that so many blacks are still drinking the Dem Kool-Aid, and believe that Dems are their friends and supporters… when in fact they are still their foremost oppressors. The plantation has just moved from the rural areas to urban centers, now. So much for 'hope and change'.
It's illustrative when a super-lib like Bill Mahre lets fly with examples of his bigotry like the recent "black president with a gun in his pants shouting curse words" rant.
It should speak VOLUMES about the real state of race relations…and expose the dark hearts of liberal/progressives.
Al Sharptongue and J$ss$ J$cks$n are the two biggest reasons things are so strained today. Their "diversity", from the word divide, is what they want. It is perfect cloward-piven chaos theory.
"Vice President Richard Nixon helped overcome a Democrat filibuster in the Senate."
Nixon.
An SOB, but an American SOB.
And that beats un-American "messiahs" by multiple orders of magnitude. (Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama, I'm talking about you.)
Given that the left loves to pin the racist button on conservatives, the following quotes are enlightening….."That's part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes sir. Inequaity, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity." DEMOCRAT Lester Maddox
Compare the above quote from the Dems own against the following quote from the GOP's own in regards to civil rights to see how a liberal ideolological spin is attempting to rewrite history……
"There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come." REPUBLICAN Everett Dirksen
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
The irony of your video is that it proves that Dr. Paul is correct. If any private business were to adopt discriminatory practices like the ones portrayed by the bar in the video – the marketplace would correctly put that bar out of business. So more appropriate questions at the end of the video would be – "Is Rand Paul an idoiot or a racist? Or are we too stupid to understand Rand Paul's opinion that we can't make a video that backs up our skewed version of rights vs. liberty?"
In a country that valued the Constitution, private people/businesses should have the right to discriminate against whatever they feel is in their interest. In the modern age of information, those private individuals/businesses will have a hard time hiding from the consequences of that discrimination – whether it be positive or negative.
Racial !Gerrymandering in the nineties gave the liberals our cities, and left those cities to the cash machine of liberal dems and socialist. The Liberals have organized the cities with groups such as ACORN, a social justice message and many other organized government solution efforts. All in order to elect more government solution liberal politicians. The liberals have run the cities into the ground while creating the slums we have today. White guilt and too much apathy from the silent majority (Tea Party) also played a big role.
Racial Gerrymandering, Backed By Dems, Hurts Blacks http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/24666/...
I agree…He is a bigot…..What must part of the Tea Party…….The left are the bigots and they try so hard to hide it….the truth always comes out
What kind of government do we have? Do you know? You can find out here for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&fe....
"In the modern age of information" —
– We're talking about legislation that was passed in 1964, right? That was not the modern age of information.
"But what do we do when the marketplace is comprised of people with outdated and questionable morals?"
That's what Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations and elaborated on in the Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Unfortunately too many people focus on the "laissez faire" statement without wanting to acknowledge the underlying morality required for it to work, and the consequent role of government in accounting for said lack.
JamesB, you hit the nail on the head.
The Great Society and all the other 'social engineering disasters' have done more to destroy the very fabric of our society than ANY other policies.
Until we can re-apply common sense to our welfare laws the dissolution of public and family integrity will continue to erode.
Unless and until we stop paying people to not work and until we stop making it more economically beneficial for single parent families than it is for united families we will see all of our cities devolve into Detroit clones.
There is no single thing you can do to destroy a person's sense of pride than to tell them they need your (the government's) help.
When the facts are known, they surely are different then how the Liberals try to twist them…Senator Dirksen
was well liked in Illinois.
There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Everett Dirksen
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Everett Dirksen
We are becoming so accustomed to millions and billions of dollars that "thousands" has almost passed out of the dictionary.
Everett Dirksen
I'm talking about right now, which is what I was assuming your video was talking about with it's simplistic examples of what you think might happen in the now.
But even if it were 1964, the sentiments offered by Dr. Paul would be valid. Our country is a country of liberty, and those liberties should be the freedom to discriminate. Of course the government institutions shouldn't discriminate, but that should be obvious.
Everyone has different standards and values, what RIGHT does the government have to dictate those standards or values when it comes to business between private individuals? The answer for those that value the freedom our Constitution protects is simple – NONE.
If Dirksen were alive today, he would be saying….
We are becoming so accustomed to billions and trillions that "millions" has almost passed out of the dictionary…
Instead of:
We are becoming so accustomed to millions and billions of dollars that "thousands" has almost passed out of the dictionary.
Everett Dirksen
"The justice" of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Puhlease. The Republicans should be ashamed of that legislation.
It gave the government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of all businesses.
It created racial quotas, it created a tool for any special interest group to scream discrimination….
Remember the black FBI agents that didn't get served in a timely manner at Denny's back in the early nineties that sued and were awarded 55 or 60 million?
The Republicans should have been obstructionists as well.
The legislation created another large power grab by the government, created racial quotas, created government intervention on hiring, employee relations, and customer service….
So Al Gore was all for keeping US citizens under their thumb, just as Al Gore Jr is all for keeping us all under the thumb of the "green revolution"….sometimes we just don't seem to learn from history at all.
Regulating business practices that could harm the public good, things like safe working conditions and safeguarding the food and drug supply, can be considered moral justification for governments role in our society. But to extend that power into making rules who private individuals/companies must do business with is an improper use of our Constitution. Who decides when morals become outdated and questionable? I come down on the side of the people doing the business transactions, not the government.
To infer that government has some sort of higher morality than the people it governs, when the rights of the government are provided by the people is cart before the horse thinking.
“That government is best which governs least.” – Thomas Paine
The Republicans should be ashamed for taking credit of the Civil Rights legislation.
It created racial quotas, lawsuits everywhere from any number of "groups", interference with hiring, employee relations, customer service….
"…………Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage……….."
This FACT is the one thing that I have utilized each and every time,……
I have had discussions with my liberal acquaintances with respect to,…………
the Democrat / Republican scoreboard and the "plight" of minorities.
Everett McKinley Dirksen,……….Jack-sin, Sharpless, Farakant,………you OWE this man.
[...] Read the original here: Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [...]
",……a million here and a million there,….pretty soon,……you are talking about some real money."
Dirksen
The worst thing that happened to MLK's dream was that,…….
the Federal government took it over.
It is interesting to note that throughout our short history most presidents and congressional members against the Civil Rights Act were in fact democrats, is it not? Yet, it seems that the black community does not realize the repubs are responsible for the acknowledgement and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act and they now, more than likely, support the dims. Could it be that the dims offer welfare and cradle to grave care, whereas the repubs demand self determination and personal responsibility for one's actions. Or could it be that the facts are not presented in the classroom. Inquiring minds wish to know.
Perfact example of what was WRONG with Ron Paul and now,………..
his silly naive son Rand.
Did this IDIOT really think he was going to have this statement (true not with standing),………..
be properly interpreted by the MSM.
He went out of his way to create this controversy,……..hence he IS an idiot…….
Let's just hope that in the coming months,..he develops a few street smarts.
Smarten up HICK,….we need your seat.
We can't have two parallel societies existing in a modern country. It was way over due. You can try to make an argument for racial segragation and it's accompying racial barriers, but I can't.
I don't have the hate in my heart that you have Knoxs, not even close. I'm not even going to argue this point beyond this. You have your reasons, I can't dignify how you feel with anything I can say.
[...] Continue reading here: Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [...]
1964 was upstaged by 1965 and the modern welfare state. It destroyed what should have been steps forward by taking several steps back.
I've DRIVEN through the Bronx, Watts in Los Angeles and all over Chicago. I wouldn't get out of my car in certain parts of this country. The black family was DESTROYED by the "Great Society". Utterly destroyed.
There are nice black families in some nice middle class and better neighborhoods but one wrong turn in East St.Louis, Ill.(like in the movie "Vacation") shows you the ugly reality.
Remember November.
http://remembernovember.com/
Hell, that SOB LBJ killed CRA as Majority Leader for years while Eisenhower was president. He knew the Democrats couldn't afford for that particular piece of legislation to be signed by a Republican president.
I have often wondered if the real purpose of the Great Society legislation was in fact to destroy the black family. I also wonder if the idea was to nip what progress blacks had made on their own.
Try reading a bit from Thomas Sowell who happening to have very strong theories on how the Dems screwed up Civil Rights -
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called 'Civil Rights, reality or rheotric' – very interesting read!
Leave it to the progressive dems to screw up anything that is decent!
The left-wing, one-trick-pony show continues. Everyone audacous enough to challenge the messiah is racist, racist, racist!!!
The question is irrelevant, ass clown, which is why you lefties keep asking it in a continued attempt to distract, distort and deny. This is settled law and NO ONE is suggesting rolling it back. You are simply trying to mitigate the unprecedented ass whopping of historic proportions your party is going to get this November. You overreached. Your guy poured gasoline on the fire and is now indignant that people are simply pointing out this fact. Typical shoot the messenger mentality.
You actually believed all that hopey, changey b.s., and now reality has presented itself with a "humiliating kick in the crotch" to you and your regressive, parasitic fellow travelers. See you in November, dick head, and we'll find out if you can put humpy-dumpty back together in time to save your pathetic asses! By humpty-dumpty, I mean ACORN and the various other democrat vote fraud criminal entities you jerks depend on to "win" elections! Now, go back to monitoring the Big sites, and try not to wet yourself if you manage to post the first comment again, shit-for-brains.
A white customer can still refuse to do business with a black business. I'm waiting to see how the Republicans amend civil rights to prevent that inequity.
You believe big government is necessary to insure fairness, and equity, I believe in the individuals to choose who and what they want to do.
Let's not forget Barry Goldwater's early support for homosexual rights. I beleieve, Harvey Milk was a supporter of Senator Goldwater, if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Goldwater was a promanent critic of the DADT provision under the Clinton administration, and thought full repeal was the best way forward. He warned the repubs not to get entangled in these divisive social issues.
It must've been nice to pick up TIME magazine and not get barraged by progressive talking points. It seems they were at one time partially fair to conservative views.
Actually I almost never think the government should fix 99% of these type of situations. The free market should and would be left to run these people out of business.
It's (I think) a bad business policy to discriminate because of race. Black peoples money spends too.
Now, the other day we were talking about advertising on Big Hollywood and I said I sick of EVERY SINGLE commercial must include bunches of black people. These same commercials always stupid, fat, bald, ignorant WHITE people and I find that insuklting too. They are OVER COMPENSATING. It's almost comical.
It's almost in a "in you face" manner.You'd think this country is 60% black. These private corporations are pressured by the race pimps to pander to black audiences. I think it sucks when white kids I know LOVE "black rap" and think it's "cool" and can't tell you why.
It's f–ing garbage. But let the market straighten that out too.
Dr.Sowell is brilliant.
Indeed! His style of writing is so succinct and flows easily from subject to subject -
The two laws kind of blended together. I was a very little kid but became cognizant of some of the ramifications fairly early on.
I was in the greater Chicago area and as a Texan I was thrilled when it snowed over night on a visit up there. I got bundled up headed for the ally and was checking things out when I turned a corner.
A big group of black kids were fooling around and they all turned and looked at me. They started running and I started running. Luckily I was a really fast little semi-white kid. I hauled ass and headed home.
Welcome to the state of race relations circa 1968.
The whole democratic machine is built and based on lies. The democrats DEPEND on an uniformed electorate and this explains their frantic rewriting of history. Meanwhile, the recent GOP has made a science out of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. We need new blood and we need it now.
It's pretty much the same now except the violence and poverty are worse.
That's what many decades of Democrat control does to a region.
Democrat Plantation.
Enslave yourself and get a few handouts.
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
You are so right about Sharpton and Jackson. They want to keep the sheep in their own little corral with their huge voices indoctrinating these sheep to believe in whatever they say. Once the sheep discover there is more green grass over yonder, these idiots will lose their control and their donations and that time will come. Maybe not in our lifetime, but it will come.
New blood that has cajones like Christie in NJ. New blood thats not afraid to stand up to these communists or worry about their pension and retirement. Oh man, do we have a job in front of us trying to find this "new blood" if it even exists. I think they all need to go except for a handfull. How about 50 congressmen and 50 senators to start with? We don't need more than that.
Hi jpmzo….Barry Goldwater came out for Gay rights and abortion after he retired…He married a much younger woman, (seems a lot of men let younger women change their minds), and he found out his Grandson was Gay…I believe I read one of his Granddaughters was a Lesbian also….
Taken From an article:
"Truthfully, Goldwater himself is partly to blame for this nonsense. As he got older, “Mr. Conservative” became more libertarian on some social issues (largely due to his wife’s influence and his understandable personal distaste for some Christian Right leaders). But even so, Goldwater only abandoned his support for a constitutional ban on abortion in his final term in the Senate and didn’t change his opposition to gay rights until long after he retired." http://article.nationalreview.com/289567/fools-go...
Yep,…but LBJ was doing nothing more than being LBJ,………..
The Republicans, even back than, could not recognize this PLUM.
jpmzo…I wrote a reply, but the administrator of the blog said it has to be approved…I don't know
why…..lol…I used the word g*y instead of homosexual……I posted this site along with my reply…
Last time they did this to me, it took almost 24 hours for them to finally post my original post….lol
http://article.nationalreview.com/289567/fools-go...
I am encouraged by the number of vocal conservatives coming out lately. There are several Americans who also happen to be black who are growing because of the TEA Party movement. This important segment of our population is sorely in need of some principled leadership and I think it is starting. Jacksn and Sharpton will soon (I hope) become marginalized as more of their own recognize the descending path they lead.
"Money dissolves skin colour on contact. The fact that Silicon Valley, the freest market in the world, has produced the United Colours of Geek proves it." — Dan Gardner
Off topic: illegal aliens say SB1070 will not stop them….Wake up America…the invasion continues and they flaunt it in your faces with impunity!!
http://www.yumasun.com/news/cross-61393-luis-immi...
Too true, which is why Jim Crow laws were needed in the first place. If society were monolithic in its racism, why bother to make a law? Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and separate but equal were needed by the racists because too much of society really didn't care about the color of someone's skin when it came down to making money.
"It the Senator can find in Title VII … any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there. " Hubert Humphrey
Of course, the GOP was rolled again–and with the assistance of that least of conservative Republican presidents–Nixon. Quotas happened very fast and are still in place to this very day.
Watching GOP in politics is a little like watching Democrats try to wage war–neither of them really "get it".
Thankfully the "media" is no longer "monolithic" in their ability to create and sustain a narrative. The truth about Republican Party history is slowly creeping back into the consciousness of the American public. Once we rediscover the roots of the Founding, and combine that with the confidence in ostracism of the "new" racists, America may finally and truly live up to her greatest ideals. Now we just need to defeat the pervasive mindset that favors Big Government Statism. FREEDOM! FREEDOM!
Hawks up 2-0 at the end of the 2nd!
T.S. is awesome.
Hawks lead 2-0 after 2. Soon to be Hawks up 2-0 after 2.
You know what I mean…
CORRECTION.
Robert Byrd was a Democrat from WV who filibustered the Civil Rights Act , not a Republican.
Go Hawks!
The Republicans got CRA passed. The dems figured out how to use CRA to their advantage, then came up with "Affirmative Action" and "Great Society" BS to create the dependent society we now see. And Jackson, Sharpton, and Co. bought it all hook, line, and sinker.
The Civil Rights Act was needed, no doubt.
But as I read it today, I think that it's goals have been met.
As to Dr. Paul's problem with title II;
He has a point.
Especially with this administration running things.
We've seen how all opposition is already blamed on race.
They use race as a weapon.
I could definitely see progressives claiming that certain types political speech excludes minorities from "full enjoyment" of their rights
Read these excerpts from title two:
42 U.S.C. §2000a
(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and **equal enjoyment** of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
"c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if……. (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or **other sources of entertainment which move in commerce**,"
"For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or **communication among the several States**, or between the District of Columbia and any State"
"Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States …..and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described."
Is it much of a stretch to think that this administration might try to shut down "communications" that it deems racist?
Holder has repeatedly shown himself incapable of interpreting law without bias.
I can see a scenario where he could claim that any pay service (including TV) that carries political programming that he deemed racially exclusive could be subject to action.
Of course, that would only happen if they were really desperate.
Ding ding ding!!! Post of the day!!!
It is passing strange that our government goes full bore enforcing civil rights laws and expanding their scope with a vengeance, but can't seem to enforce our immigration laws or secure the border. Isn't it our right, a civil right, as American citizens to expect that government enforce the immigration laws?
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
There's a story about a young Al Gore, Jr being sent to take a sandwich and drink out to the family limo, parked in a sunny lot outside the restaurant where the Gore family were enjoying a long, leisurely lunch, pre-air-conditioned-autos days, for the black nanny who was traveling with them. Nice bunch of people, the Gores.
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
[...] Republican Roots Of The 1964 Civil Rights Act [...]
The Southern Strategy and many blacks' mistrust of "state's rights" (which was the legal defense used by some of the defenders of slavery and Jim Crow) are the reason for the disconnect between blacks and the Republican party, not a lack of understanding of history.
*Shrugs* I don't believe that even if the law was changed (not that anyone is proposing changing it), that discrimination would return. America in 2010 is a very different place than America of 1964.
Blacks currently vote more democratic than registered democrats, and that is something that will change only with time. Some of us recognize that talk about State's rights nowadays is to concerns about stuff like the health care bill, not a desire to resurrect Jim Crow.
A strengthened committment to traditional values, education, the family and children is exactly what the black community needs, and as time passes, more and more will come to recognize that fact.
[...] Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [...]
I can honestly I did not know the fact behind the Civil Rights fight in the halls of Congress until now I am truly interested in knowing more. I guess you can blame that on the failure of the public school education I received. I know that for sure I will be reading up and learning more about the true story of Civil Rights.
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
[...] speaking of the US, at Big Government, Michael Zak explores the “Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” an extended post that dovetails well with Bruce Bartlett’s 2007 article in the Wall Street [...]
The 1875 Act was based on the 13th Amendment, not the commerce clause. Libertarians traditionally object to the commerce clause rationale because it opens the door to federal intervention in so many areas it threatens the constraints of limited government. The case striking down the 1875 Act was overturned in 1968 in a case involving racial restrictions on land sales. The 13th Amendment, restricted as it is to issues of race and understood by its drafters to apply to public accommodation, should satisfy Libertarian concerns about encroaching government into private affairs unless Libertarians decide the text of the Constitution is best left out of the debate.
The Left has been accusing the Tea Parties of racialist nostalgia since the beginning. Paul needs to make clear the distinction between opposition to commerce clause overreach and opposition to racial discrimination. As a self-described Tea Party candidate, Paul gives the movement's opposition a lot to work with. This issue could potentially sink the small government/low taxes/free market agenda that propels the Tea Party and holds it together. If liberty to Paul means Woolworth's has the right to toss black kids out of the lunch counter, it won't sell. Remember Goldwater, 1964? Or the 2004 vote commemorating the 1964 Act, opposed only by Ron Paul? Paul should work this out quickly and clearly.
[...] Rand Paul’s controversial remarks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act illustrate what I have been saying for years, that Republicans would benefit tremendously from knowing and appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. That landmark legislation was the culmination of a century of efforts by Republicans to protect African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors. Let’s look at the facts …….. Read More [...]
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
Wow, bonus point to you jpmzo! Right on point in all your words
That the Stanley Cup belongs to the HAWKS!!
While I understand your sentiments and agree that we need him to win his race, I'm tired of Politicians trying to speak safely in a world that is getting closer every day to becoming unstable and dangerous. Our country is in the shape it is because progressive apologists have invaded both parties and left the public with the choice between the lesser evil.
With our country/world on the brink of financial meltdown I don't want to tell my kids that I supported the guy that was only 90 degrees different than our founders (rather than the democrat 160-170). Rand Paul may not be perfect, but with this issue he is defending our Constitution against the wanna-be socialist progressives that have warped the definition of "discrimination" to mean hate and oppression, rather than the associations our founders would have thought of that word – liberty, protection and the pursuit of happiness.
The time for apologizing for what is right and just should come to an end.
Ahh if only the majority of the country had your clarity of situations,…..
but you know how sound bitten they are and this boy gave them one
helluva mouth full.
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government [...]
Okay, I took my valium now, I'll be fine in a few minutes.
;p
Was it even beneficial to pass the legislation in the first place?
Would free market principles have solved discrimination issues, kind of ironed out the problem given enough time?
Is government required to "fix" issues like racism and discrimination, or does it just create more problems when it tries than if it had just left the issue alone?
Interesting issue on how things might be if they would have stayed out vs. what exists nowadays.
Very interesting quote you dug up there!
I have no doubts that the Dems screwed up civil rights as well.
[...] Michael Zak пишет: That landmark legislation was the culmination of a century of efforts by Republicans to protect African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors. Let’s look at the facts …….. Read More [...] Neighbors tree roots are causing foundation … [...]
[...] » Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Big Government … speaking of the US, at Big Government, Michael Zak explores the “Republican Roots of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” an extended post that … biggovernment.com/…/republican-roots-of-the-1964-civil-rights-act/ [...]
[...] them with handouts. I wonder if the African-American community even realizes that it was the Republicans who championed civil rights and the Democrats who denied them and enslaved them again through [...]
[...] them with handouts. I wonder if the African-American community even realizes that it was the Republicans (read the entire post) who championed civil rights and the Democrats who denied them and enslaved [...]
[...] [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.