Amazon.com Widgets
  • According to a proper interpretation of the constitution...Yes

    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.

  • States' Rights for all

    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.

  • I believe it is.

    It simply allows for discrimination under the guise of Affirmative Action, And takes away the freedoms of people. Note, The fewer laws we have, The more free we truly are. More laws do not make us free. Laws that justify discrimination and destroy religious freedoms along with free speech are, In fact, Unconstitutional.

  • Section 1 of 14th Amendment

    The argument that the 14th Amendment empowers Congress to pass this law (which they instead attempted to justify under the Commerce Clause) is misinformed. Congress may only pass appropriate legislation to enforce the other sections of the law ("life, Liberty, Or property" under Section 1 would fall into this). The authorization for Congress to pass "appropriate legislation" to enforce the 14th Amendment.

    That's not carte blanche to just pass any law they like. They could pass laws preventing localities from restricting the rights of a class of citizens (preemption) but could not take affirmative action to force private business to cater to others.

  • It doesn’t matter whether the government has authority to regulate under the commerce clause

    The CRA is a violation of the first amendment freedom to associate or dissociate with or from whomever you choose. The notion that this right is somehow forfeited when you operate a business is also absurd. Particularly at the time that the constitution was written, For the majority of people business activities took up 60%+ of waking hours. The bill of rights was not written to only apply to the 40% of time people had for leisure is absurd.

  • Zionist controlled government

    From the masonic adventurers of the continental congress to today, Our revolution was obstructed misguided and usurped to benefit the aims of secret associations and forces devoid of any loyalty to a cause of freedom which is antithetical to the long intended aim of destroying freedom for a slave nation

  • Racism doesn't exist, It's not a sin or a social crime to want to live with a community of loving people and protect said community.

    The "right to free assembly" i. E. The right of whites to live among other whites exclusively is abrogated when the law says that a given business is somehow committing a social crime by refusing service to negroes. The negroes are a foreign tribe, Often hostile to our people and often target whites (and other socially responsible races like Asians) for the fact that we are a superior group of humanity and they are jealous of this fact. There is literally 0 legal precedent for the Civil Rights act across the Western world; before the 19th century it was always thought wise to keep socially aggressive and vastly different social groups apart due to the social problems this brings by having so many different groups living in close proximity. We see this today and we see the denial, Deceit and delusion of leftists who refuse to acknowledge that Civil Rights have not made blacks "nicer" to live with and ultimately is seen as a sign that "whitey be weak" by negroes.

    It was okay to try to live peacefully with blacks but as you can clearly see, The Civil Rights act only applies to whitey and is used to bludgeon our police forces, Our schools, Our businesses, Our teachers, Our peaceful neighborhoods and even our churches until we submit to negroes destroying everything we love and hold dear. This is a tyranny which no man with a moral backbone could justify.

    Look at the cities with high negroe populations. Are they better now than before? Look at schools with high negroe populations, Better now or before? It's just a fact, Any city or place with a high negroe populations turns into a craphole that nobody wants to live in. Does a foreign group have the right to trash our country? If so then our country is doomed.

  • Government cant force the private sector to serve who they want, and it was unnecessary.

    Generally speaking this act was unneeded, all that needed to be done was to enforce the Brown vs. Board of Ed. Decision. Also, like many cases, it abused the commerce clause to do away with states rights and establish state supremacy. This led to further judicial activism.

    Not to mention the greatest offense being titles II and VII, which not only made private businesses "public" but also made it so the federal government through force could decide the actions business owners take. The free market already regulates these businesses by putting them at a competitive disadvantage if they choose not to serve a group a people that can do business with another establishment that will serve them.

  • It is unconstitutional!

    1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech."

    14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

    The Civil Rights Act abridges the freedom of speech, which therefore makes it unconstitutional.

  • Freedom of association

    While I agree that the government may mandate policies and guidelines for their behavior and actions and those of their employees. They may NOT mandate those same policies onto the public. We are free to deny the establishment of any relationship. We have the choice on who we wish to enter into a relationship with or not to. Its called liberty. While I agree the discrimination as a whole is wrong it is constitutional.

  • Public entities do not have the right to discriminate.

    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.

  • Its not illegal to intervene in the private sector

    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 government has broad power to intervene in the private sector.

    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.

  • §5 Fourteenth Amendment permits the CRA and is bolstered by the Commerce Clause

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is clearly constitutional.

    The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due Process and equal protection under the law and sought to afford Congress the ability to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment. §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, By appropriate legislation, The provisions of this article. "

    Congress then exercised this power in promulgating the Civil Rights Act, Which received additional legitimacy in its regulation of commercial activity which is in Congress' purview under the Commerce Clause.

    In Heart of Atlanta Motel and in subsequent U. S. Supreme Court decisions, Such as Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), The court held that Congress had the ability to regulate "private" actors if their actions are sufficiently related to commercial activity. With respect to the argument that the Motel operator's due process is being deprived in their decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel the court states, ". . . A vague clause like the requirement for due process, Originally meaning "according to the law of the land" would be a highly inappropriate provision on which to rely to invalidate a "law of the land" enacted by Congress clearly granted power like that to regulate interstate commerce. Moreover, It would be highly ironical to use the guarantee of due process--a guarantee which plays so important a part in the Fourteenth Amendment, An amendment adopted with the predominant aim of protection [N word] from discrimination. "

    Further, While the Supreme Court can err, As they certainly have in the past (see: Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. The United States), Ultimately their rulings and interpretations of the Constitution stand and becomes the supreme law of the land. In other words, To paraphrase Justice Jackson, The Court is not final because it is infallible, But infallible because it is final. So to argue that the court is incorrect in their interpretation of the Constitution is somewhat self-defeating given that the Constitution (presumably) affords the court to be the final arbiters of its meaning.

  • This law is constitutional.

    The only titles often questioned are title 2 and 7. Neither of which break the constitution.

    The First Amendments Freedom of religious exercise, association and/or speech is often cited in this context.

    However:

    Title 2:

    Freedom of religious exercise:
    "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
    Working in a public accommodation is not defined as an exercise of religion, it is defined as an exercise of work. This means there is no conflict with the freedom of religion.

    Freedom of Speech:
    - Service in a public accommodation is not defined as speech. Therefore no conflict exists with the freedom of speech.

    Freedom of Association:
    - "Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs."
    This freedom is not broken by disallowing discrimination in public accommodation for the freedom of association simply does not mean you can randomly pick and choose who to asociate with (Which customers in public accommodation, or for example law enforcement are great examples of), it means you are alowed to asociate with groups of various kinds.

    Title 7:
    The above arguments also work for title 7: Employment discrimination. Except for the freedom of association, whereas a job or workplace isn't defined as an associative group, therefor also not breaking said clause of the first Amendment.

  • There's no question as to its legality. It's only the subject matter that's controversial.

    The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution clearly states that that Congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce. It follows that the Civil Rights Act falls within the parameters enumerated by the constitution: it's a piece of legislation, passed by the congress, regulating interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the legality of the act, and many others like it.

    So if you're crying foul on the CRA, and at the same time you're unquestioningly accepting the legality of more stringent regulations that have been upheld on the same grounds, then I think it's pretty clear where your priorities lie.

  • 14th amendment makes it legal

    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.

  • I don't think so

    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

  • It is necessary

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.