The Supreme Court already ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the law applies to the private sector; however, I don't think the court made a proper interpretation of the constitution. I agree that 9 out of the 11 provisions within the law are indeed constitutional. I only believe the following two provisions are unconstitutional:
-Title II outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
-Title VII prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
According to the First Amendment, we all have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association. People don't question the legality of saying that we have the right to issue racist comments in public or on our own private property because it is protected by the First Amendment. Why do then people claim that a private employer cannot chose whom he wants to hire or not? It is his constitutional right (in my view, not the court's) to choose whom he wishes to assemble or not assemble with.
I strongly believe that most of the civil rights legislation passed in this country is unconstitutional. First of all, these issues are a state issue and should not be dealt with on a federal level. Secondly, Why should the government be telling a businessman who he hires and fires and who he lets in his business? How is that any of their business?
The civil rights act gave the government a way to much control over the hiring and firing process and if i was president in 1964, i would not have signed it.
The Supreme Court decided that Title II of the Civil Rights Act was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause had been systematically abused by the court ever since Wickard v. Filman, when they said that the federal government could prohibit a man from growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own chicken. Because it affected interstate commerce. If that sounds ridiculous to you, it's because it is. What happened is that the court was striking down all of FDR'd programs so he threatened to increase the court size to 15 and appoint six brand new judges (beholden to him of course) unless SCOTUS played ball. Well, they did and the rest is history.
Now, once something is decided, future courts don't look to the constitution but to precedent. The problem is that the court had an unfortunate history of making decisions based on what they want and then making stuff up and saying it's in the Constitution when it clearly isn't. So you have one horrible ruling and it produces a whole slew of horrible rulings based on that one. Once the courts decided the Commerce Clause didn't mean what it said, but gave the federal government permission to do anything they wanted because interstate commerce.
So that brings us to Title II of the Civil Rights act, in which privately held businesses were magically deemed to be "public." Moreover, even though they conduct all of their business within a state, they're somehow engaged in interstate commerce. Perfectly reasonable if you go by Wickard v. Filman, but that ruling was ludicrous.
Now, is it constitutional based on the 14th amendment? Prior courts said no, which is why they had to misuse the interstate commerce clause to get the desired result.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
anti-discriminatory laws in private business abridge the employer's rights in the 14's amendment. The government is taking away liberties to operate his business how he/ she choses. Also, these laws infringe upon the right to his/her property, capital investment (their own money). The government would be forcing him to hire individual which he might regularly not choose because of any form of prejudice. They rather invest their money in the employment of those whom they support and are their top choice for whatever reason.
By hiring based on prejudice, an employer may create a bad reputation for his/ her company. For example, If a man has a sign outside his shop saying, "Now Hiring White Women only", they would have a bad public reputation because people disapprove of the employer's racism/ sexism. His shop could fail because less people might patronize his store because he's perceived as "immoral" and a "bad person." His discriminatory employment would prove to be harmful to business, but it is his right to make poor business decisions.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc; these only become illegal when transgressing another citizen's rights.
In this instance, a denied employee's rights are still intact.
Finally, discrimination could be good for business. It allows employers to hire base on their target market. For example, if you own Hooter's, you would deny employment of old hairy men; employing young attractive women only. You would be discriminating based on age, appearance and gender, but hiring the attractive women would fit your target market better and ultimately promote business. Nobody wants and old hairy guy in a tight shorts to serve them wings at hooter while watching a football game. People want the stunning young lady.
I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but i believe that it is one that is long overdue. In 1964 the Supreme Court issued an extremely divided 5-4 opinion in "Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs United States" that banning discrimination in public places was constitutional because of the governments right to regulate interstate commerce. To put it in perspective, the supreme court of the united states issued an opinion that because the segregated hotel was so close to the border & its customers were from out of state, that the federal government had the right to exponentially expand one of its regulatory powers, even for businesses that didn't fit this businesses circumstances. If you take the constitution literally, then the 1964 civil rights act is BLATANTLY Unconstitutional
The central premise to the individualistic ideal that is America,- is the sovereignty of the individuals right to make their own value judgement's. If this violates the contemporary tastes of the community, the free market will deal with it. It belongs in no other place, nor does it require help from an authority as this provokes tyranny.
The Equal Protection Clause had already provisioned for the equal protection of citizens; laws applicable to the federal government became applicable to the states. Plessy v Ferguson had already demonstrated that constitutionally, it was perfectly ok to have separate but equal facilities. However, liberal activists had begin to rethink the idea of "equality' and felt that if institutions were not completely equal, than they had to be inherently wrong. They looked at the schools and rationalized that black students could not be equally confident if they were not sitting next to white students ( even though studies show that this was incorrect; southern blacks in segregated schools performed on the same level as northern blacks in integrated schools). But they knew that in order to allow government intervention, schools had to identified as "unequal" ( so that Plessy v Ferguson) would not apply, and created a forced integration policy. Before, separate but equal allowed for the public to integrate voluntarily; now desegregation FORCED the public to integrate.
Racial strife was created but it was not all based on skin color. Most of it stemmed from a anger toward the federal government's overreaching and unconstitutional act of not allowing for private property rights and freedom of association, both taken away with the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"No law respecting an establishment of religion", and this law clearly does that, thereby violating the First Amendment. It is mandating how private individuals treat religions -- even religions which call for the murdering of that individual as some like Judaism and Islam do. Furthermore, it penalizes benevolent religions and forces them to fund and somewhat reward evil religions like Islam which are bent on enslaving them and raping their women. The marketplace can sort out good from evil.
It should be obvious that any private individual should have the right to choose with whom or what he engages in financial transactions with. To force someone to serve someone coffee in his own coffee shop against his will by putting the proverbial (and possibly literal) gun to his head is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral. If the people do not like the store policy, they are free to boycott and go elsewhere. If racism is wrong, the market will sort itself out and the racists will go out of business. At any rate, it's none of the governments damned business.
The mere fact that racism is disgusting does not give the Federal Government the right to intervene in private business affairs. Calling a hotel an agent of Interstate Commerce, for instance, is absurd in principle and used only to give credence to the Federal Government stepping in. As much as we may not like it, discrimination by a private citizen, whether in word or in deed, is a right of expression and is thus protected under the Constitution. Ignoring the protection of rights when we deem it distasteful is a dangerous and decidedly slippery slope.
If an entity is public, it has no right to discriminate. That is just wrong. The government can and does have the right to act to protect life and civil liberties. I am quite disgusted that anyone would say otherwise. Dear God, this world is cray cray. Random word filler. Word.
Anyone who thinks that its unconstitutional needs to understand that the government is fully within their constitutional power to control the private sector in anyway they see fit. They have the power to tax, they have the power to intervene, and they have the power to impose regulations in any way they see fit. Its not unconstitutional for blacks to have basic rights, its actually unconstitutional for them to not have basic rights, thats the simple truth.
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights ACt of 1964 in the case "Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States" under the auspices that the federal government does have the constitutional right to regulate commerce between states. There have also been citations of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases, and the Court has ruled that preventing discrimination is the only way to provide equality for all, and give all people an equal right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They followed this up with decisions on discrimination by gender, race, and other factors repeatedly afterwards, in such cases as "Pittsburgh PRess Co. V. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations", "Griggs v. Duke Power Co", "Washington v. Davis", "Wards Cove Packing Co. V, Davis", and Ricci v. DeStafano".
So essentially this question is undermining the Supreme Court, whose entire purpose is to determine Constitutionality of laws and legislation. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held up the Civil Rights Act as Constitutional, this question is rather silly.
The 14th amendment empowered the federal government to protect civil rights of citizens. It empowers congress to pass any legislation necessary to that end. It enables congress to create that fascist distopia some fear. Hopefully it never comes to that, but yes, congress has the power to legislate the behavior of private citizens when in the interest of civil rights.
The constitution states that we formed a more Percocet union . The only thing that would make sense is that it is not in constitutional. See ya all later suckers j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
The Civil Rights Act was put into place as an attempt to rectify an ongoing situation where people in this country were being treated like some kind of second rate citizens. The rest of the people in this country didn't have the common decency to make it right without the law getting involved. So no, it's not unconstitutional. It's absolutely necessary.