The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act

[Lumi]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Ron Paul[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. [/FONT]
​

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. [/FONT]​

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.[/FONT]​

 

[Chadman]

As I recall, many of the framers of the Constitution were ok with slavery as a practice, as well. While I certainly have respect for the Constitution and how our country was formed, I also realize I don't agree with everything these people stood for, and tried to establish many years ago.

A society evolves. People evolve. Especially a free society that should realize how to balance the rights of the free people that are governed by a unified mission of freedom. With freedom, comes responsibility. I personally think strong steps had to be taken to ensure the freedoms and rights of people of color during that time. The Constitution does not, and should not, permit absolute freedom for people to do anything they personally think they should be able to do. That would be anarchy, and only a few in this country think that's the best way to have a country run.

 

[Lumi]

Chad,

You always, almost bring up good arguements and debate points. The Libertarian Point of view is that we don't want constant government interference in our lives, and I believe you agree with that for the most part? Everything we do has a Czar regulating it.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was telling people, forcing people to coexist which just created more animosity. My ex-wife, who grew up in Arkansas had told me about riding the school bus with National Guard Troops when her elementary school was integrated. These were definately horrible times, and thankfully, for the most part they are over.

I don't know if you have been to the Deep South, but I have seen some fucked up living conditions and race relations down there.

The Thirteenth Amendment: The Abolition of Slavery The Issue: What is the history behind the 13th Amendment? Is it "self-enacting"? What sorts of private activities might Congress regulate under its enforcement provision?

Women's Fight for the Vote: The Nineteenth Amendment
The issues: Should the 14th Amendment be interpreted as guaranteeing to women the right to vote? How did women finally win the right to vote?

The Powers of Congress to Enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments
The Issue: How far is Congress, under the Civil War Amendments, allowed to go in regulating what it sees as violations of equal protection, due process, and other basic liberties?

Whites Can Still Legally Discriminate Against Blacks

A racist White store owner cannot legally prevent a Black customer from trading with him. Yet, a racist White customer can legally prevent a Black store owner from trading with him by just not walking into his store. So what?s the difference? In both cases, one of the two parties (i.e., the Black person) in the trade is being economically ?hurt? by the other party (i.e., the racist White person).

(I?m sure if the government could have figured out a way to ?remedy? this discrimination, they?d have done it by now.)

 

[Chadman]

Illum, I agree in principle with the government reach being an issue in areas of our lives. I have a big problem with some of the surveillance and monitoring that goes on now, under the guise of national security. I have been to the deep south - and I grew up in Southwest Missouri. Traveled from time to time south through Arkansas, took some trips that took me through Mississippi, Louisiana, have been through Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. Have seen some horrible places.

Makes he quite happy to live in state that does have a high tax base, that actually puts the money to work in some wonderful ways for the citizens. Minnesota is a great place to live, other than the obvious winter issues.

By the same token, I've seen some fucked up living conditions in places in the midwest, West, East and North, too.

 

[Lumi]

And mosquitos the size of the Capistrano Swallow in the Summer :SIB :toast:

Growing up in Southern Cal, hanging and banging with everyone, it was quite a shock to take "The DeLorean" for 150 year trip to the past.

 

[Chadman]

Yes, the mosquito literally should be the state bird of MN, no doubt.

 

[Lumi]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act in the 21st Century

The 1964 Civil Rights Act in the 21st Century

The 1964 Civil Rights Act in the 21st Century
Alex Tabarrok
Rand Paul's remarks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act brought forth lots of talk about libertarians and lunch counters but almost no discussion of how the Civil Rights Act actually works in the twenty-first century. Yesterday provided a nice reminder.

I won't comment on Lewis v. City of Chicago directly because it was decided on technical matters (the Supreme Court ruled that black firefighters in Chicago did not miss a deadline to argue that a test disproportionately hurt their chances of employment). The underlying facts, however, are of interest not because they are especially unusual but because they are common. From Fire Law:

The case, Lewis v. Chicago, involved alleged discrimination against African American applicants for the Chicago Fire Department who took a test in 1995. The department set a passing score of 64 on the exam. Applicants who scored at least 64 but below 89 were informed that they passed the test, but would probably not be hired given the number of candidates who scored 89 or above. [26,000 applied and there were only a few hundred jobs, AT] Applicants scoring 89 and above were classified as ?well qualified?.

The majority of ?well-qualified? applicants were white. Only 11 percent were black...

The trial court sided with the black applicants, and ordered the city to hire 132 randomly selected African American applicants who scored above 64. The court also ordered the city to divide backpay owed among the rest of the black applicants.

White, Asian and Hispanic applicants who also scored above 64 but below the 89 standard were not offered employment or backpay.

Perhaps you are wondering about the tests? You would be hard pressed to find any obvious racial bias. I haven't found the Chicago test online but you can find similar tests from New York (also the subject of lawsuits) here. Here is a sample questions from New York.



Nowadays the Chicago fire department simply gives everyone an easy test and then they hire randomly.

 

[Lumi]

The Rand Paul Distraction

The Rand Paul Distraction

The Rand Paul Distraction

We've got plenty on our plates without debating the past.

David Harsanyi | May 26, 2010


<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="/media/js/audio-player.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> AudioPlayer.setup("/media/swf/player.swf", { width: 290 }); </SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> // <![CDATA[ $.getJSON('/outloudopinion/2010/05/26/the-rand-paul-distraction', function(data){ if(data.audio != null){ $("#outloudopinion").html(' Listen to Audio Version (MP3)

').show(); AudioPlayer.embed("outloudaudio", {soundFile: data.audio, titles:"The Rand Paul Distraction"}); }else{ //$("#outloudopinion").html(' Listen to Reason.com articles on OutloudOpinion
'); } }); // ]]> </SCRIPT>
Health care reform? Cap and trade? Deficits? Terrorism? Boring.

Isn't it time we started querying our political candidates on issues that really matter?
Let's start with this one: If you were a convention delegate in 1778, would you have voted to ratify the Constitution of the United States?

If the answer is yes?and you don't hate America, do you?!?it's only fair we conclude that you support restricting voting rights to male landowners exclusively. Surely, from your position, we can also deduce that you support slavery.

Now, if the answer is nay on ratification, we will take this to mean that you oppose a document that provided the infrastructure for more long-term liberty and prosperity?for all races?than any other in history.

Creating racists is really no problem at all.
Ask Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican who made the unfortunate decision to be a guest on MSNBC after his victory in the Kentucky's Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Paul went on to clumsily talk about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, expressing misgivings about the "public accommodation" provision that stopped segregation in privately owned establishments.
Alas, earnest ideologues do not make for good politicians. And Paul made the error of discussing the consequences of stripping citizens?even racists?of their right to free association and speech.

And, as Julian Sanchez in Newsweek pointed out, "There's nothing intrinsically racist in the argument in favor of property rights?and indeed, any real liberal ought to at least have some sympathy for it."

Agree or not, shouldn't Americans armed with historical perspective be able to engage in constructive dialogue about the positive consequences?and some of the negative complexities?of legislation from 1964? (I know. Just kidding.)

Some critics eagerly blasted "naive" libertarians, and others, like Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, used Paul's "extremist position" to wring their hands over the coming Republican crusade to overturn the Civil Rights Act?which fits neatly into an arching (and largely imagined) narrative that puts America squarely in the mid-1960s.

As much as liberals love to imagine they're re-fighting the battles of 40-plus years ago, there is little institutionalized racism in the United States today. The accusation might excite some eager activists, but retroactive arguments about long-decided legislation, stirring up racial turbulence and distracting voters from contemporary debates is not helping anyone's cause.
The fact is, nearly everyone?including, it seems, most libertarians and Paul himself?agree that the Civil Rights Act was necessary in untangling repressive, government-codified Southern racism. The problem is that some of this kind of well-intentioned and important legislation has been used to validate the infinite creep of Washington intrusion into commerce and life.

While it is inarguable that many in the South used the Constitution as a pretext to solidify their racism then, today it is often the mainstream left that uses racism to smear those with an earnest belief in the document.
After all, today's political battles are about "extremist positions"?issues like socializing medicine, nationalizing the energy sector, and other various hyper-regulatory projects that are baking in Washington's oven.

We've got plenty on our plates without debating the past.

 

[Lumi]

Paul and the Private Parts

Paul and the Private Parts

Paul and the Private Parts

Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.

Jacob Sullum | May 26, 2010

Listen to Audio Version (MP3)

Last week James Clyburn, a former civil rights activist who is now a Democratic congressman from South Carolina, warned that if Rand Paul is elected to represent Kentucky in the Senate, "it will be the first step?to turning back the gains that we started making way back in the 1860s." The comment, provoked by the Republican candidate's criticism of the federal ban on racial discrimination in places of "public accommodation," was not just hyperbolic but radically misguided, because Paul's position is based on the same principle that led to the abolition of slavery and the long struggle for equality that followed it: the principle of self-ownership.

If we own ourselves, it follows that no one else can own us?the most obvious way in which slavery violates human rights. It also follows that we own our labor, which means we decide who benefits from it and under what terms, and the fruits of our labor, which means we control access to our property. All these rights were flagrantly violated not only by slavery but by the racist Jim Crow regime that succeeded it, which forced businesses to discriminate against blacks as customers and employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to eliminate state-imposed segregation and all other forms of official discrimination against blacks. While wholeheartedly supporting that goal, which belatedly implemented the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, Paul expressed qualms about the provisions banning private discrimination, which impinged on the same liberties?freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights?that were routinely disregarded under Jim Crow.
Paul noted that liberty would not mean much if it did not include the ability to say and do "abhorrent things." Just as freedom of speech and freedom of association benefit the Ku Klux Klan along with the NAACP, the right to control one's property and to choose one's customers benefits the bigot along with former slaves and their descendants.

Paul's more sophisticated critics argued not that he was racist but that he was unrealistic. Given the social environment created by centuries of government-backed slavery and oppression, they said, segregation in the South would not have been eliminated simply by withdrawing state support for it. Even if every racist law and government policy were abolished, racist business practices would have lingered as long as there was a demand for them or as long as owners were willing to pay an economic price for their own bigotry.

But before concluding that new infringements on liberty were necessary to remove the stain left by past infringements, consider some unforeseen consequences of the federal ban on private discrimination. The precedent has encouraged an assault on freedom of association, as illustrated by demands that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Christian student groups, and online dating services adopt gay-friendly policies.
The blurring of the distinction between public and private property has invited a wide array of meddlesome regulations, ranging from bans on smoking in bars and restaurants to unfunded mandates requiring expensive renovations to accommodate customers in wheelchairs. As Paul noted, the "public accommodation" rationale even has been cited as a pretext for forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

In upholding the ban on discrimination by places of public accommodation, the Supreme Court loosened constitutional restraints on federal authority, extending it to cover businesses with tangential connections to interstate commerce, such as a motel that serves travelers or an Illinois restaurant that uses Idaho potatoes. This absurd stretching of the Commerce Clause, usually applauded by progressives, has led to results even they do not like, such as federal restrictions on abortion and attempts to override state policies regarding medical marijuana and assisted suicide.

A broad license to interfere with property rights and freedom of contract inevitably deprives people of choices they value. Rand Paul deserves credit for pointing out that we cannot abridge the freedom of those we despise without endangering our own freedom.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist