CSNbbs

to give those who ain't got a little more.......

Ron and Rand are racists, right?

On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act.

Only Ron Paul dissented.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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. "

The first part of his arguement is defensible, I think, the parts about property rights and the contract rights. Although even that, if your property is engaged in public commerce, it gets tricky. But you know all those arguements can go on endlessly.

But the section I'm quoting at the top, I'm thinking that is a pretty subjective statement. I know that science has the concept of the false negative. But even Ron agrees things have gotten "better". Why he would then try to argue that things have gotten better DESPITE the act is hard to figure. I totally agree it is possible he is right, just not probable he is right. That his is an opinion of 1 is telling.

I like when people speak out like this though. Gives one pause to think about things.

Quote:the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals.

Quote:this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts.

I maintain that public attitudes and private (what ever "private" means) efforts would not have changed the status quo of ~1960 would not have been addressed with the law pushing the issue.

(05-26-2010 12:46 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote: [ -> ]"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. "

The first part of his arguement is defensible, I think, the parts about property rights and the contract rights. Although even that, if your property is engaged in public commerce, it gets tricky. But you know all those arguements can go on endlessly.

But the section I'm quoting at the top, I'm thinking that is a pretty subjective statement. I know that science has the concept of the false negative. But even Ron agrees things have gotten "better". Why he would then try to argue that things have gotten better DESPITE the act is hard to figure. I totally agree it is possible he is right, just not probable he is right. That his is an opinion of 1 is telling.

I like when people speak out like this though. Gives one pause to think about things.

I always thought a good place to draw the line was with corporations..

If you own a private business you should have the right to discriminate however you please... If, however, you take advantage of the legal and tax advantages of a corporation than one employee or ten thousand you are bound by the civil rights act..

(05-26-2010 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I always thought a good place to draw the line was with corporations..

If you own a private business you should have the right to discriminate however you please... If, however, you take advantage of the legal and tax advantages of a corporation than one employee or ten thousand you are bound by the civil rights act..

Corporations have the biggest poltical pull and therefore would be prevented if targeted to them. The approach above would maintain the status quo of discrimination.

(05-27-2010 09:22 PM)steer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2010 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]I always thought a good place to draw the line was with corporations..

If you own a private business you should have the right to discriminate however you please... If, however, you take advantage of the legal and tax advantages of a corporation than one employee or ten thousand you are bound by the civil rights act..

Corporations have the biggest poltical pull and therefore would be prevented if targeted to them. The approach above would maintain the status quo of discrimination.

I believe the SEIU and other large Unions have as much influence as corporations. How in the hell is a democratic society could a governing body consider eliminating private union votes? simple because influential unions don't want the vote to be private.

Corporations *already* follow the civil rights laws passed so it seems that getting them to keep following what they are already following is at least feasible.

They don't "already" follow those laws passed because it's good for their health.