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
35 comments
Proof positive Ron Paul is a racist. I guess he wants to go back to the days of lynching and Jim Crow laws?
This, by the way, is proof that libertarians are just fascists by another name. Nothing at all "libertarian" (with a small L) about them.
Yeah, it actually is racist. It's all in the subtext.
"Violated the Constitution" = "The Founding Fathers never meant for people of different colors to actually have to MINGLE!"
"Reduced individual liberty" = "People can't discriminate against skin colors they don't like! It's unfair!"
This fuckwipe also wants to deport my 6-3/4-year-old niece "back to" Mexico. Never mind she was born in DENVER COLORADO, and my sister is an American citizen. Nope, my X-BIL is Mexican, therefore the kid goes "home" with Daddy.
(And Mommy goes to prison for treason for "fornicating with a foreigner." Or "being an enemy of God" because she walked out on her "lawful Christian husband" when he started exercising his due Christian right to discipline her defiant, disobedient behavior smacking her around. Whichever they get around to convicting her of, first.)
There was nothing "unconstitutional" about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld it multiple times against constitutional challenges.
Now, I suppose one could argue that the Court got it wrong, but you would find no precedential support and few, if any, modern lawyers or legal scholars who would agree with you.
People who oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violate my concept of human decency and reduce my respect for them; they also fail to achieve their stated goal of convincing me that the entrenched, institutional racism that existed for decades after the end of slavery is somehow not incongruous with the concept of a base level of individual liberty to which we are all entitled.
God bless the PaulTards-enemies of federal tyranny but relentless advocates of the local/state variety.
Goddamnit, the Constitution was written by human beings, not God. Human beings who disagreed on things themselves and MADE THE CONSTITUTION AMENDABLE.
Stop sucking its cock, you'll only get a papercut.
Right, you guys. Because the constitution grants every American citizen a right not to be offended, which, should there ever be a conflict, will supercede the right to free speech.
Whetever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?
Right, you guys. Because the constitution grants every American citizen a right not to be offended, which, should there ever be a conflict, will supercede the right to free speech.
Whetever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?
Nobody here has said anything about a "Constitutional right to not be offended". That's not even what the CRA is or does and that's not even what Saint Ron is arguing against, so sorry if I see right through your South Park style straw man debate strategy.
Here, I'll say it again: the well known institutionalized racism of the pre-CRA days (that is to say, local/state governments stacking the deck against minorities) is 100 fucking percent incompatible with the concept of individual liberty pushed by Paul and his followers. The only area where they have a shred of something resembling an argument is in the area of employment/business practices, and as others have mentioned, the USSC has held up the CRA multiple times. The caveat to the concept of individual liberty is that it does not include the right to infringe upon the liberty of others.
As for your last sentence, that is what this site is about. We love our Constitutional right to mock idiots, just as much as they love theirs to spout insanity. We don't want either to ever go away.
So, any law that can't be enforced 100% should be repealed, right?
"The caveat to the concept of individual liberty is that it does not include the right to infringe upon the liberty of others."
I agree. That's fair enough. It's also probably the libertarian thing to say anyway.
I don't know anything about the rants or comments the articles cite, but this brief comment alone does not make him a racist, nor is it a racist position.
I believe the idea at work here is not that segregation or racism are moral- no one in their right mind could think so- but that the government is wrong in forcing individuals to participate in a belief against their own will. What I presume is that Paul is saying that if the laundromat owner wants to be an idiot and drive off half his customers, fine, let him destroy himself. All the other laundromats with the brains and the ethics to serve all customers will gladly take up the extra business.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty...."
Y'see, folks, Mr. Paul here is actually from Bizzaro-World, where everything's distorted & opposite. In Bizzaro-World, a law that promotes liberty & freedom for all is the exact opposite. To prove my point...Ron Paul's face is white & craggy, just like Bizzaro-Superman's visage & the rest of the denizens of DC Comic's fabled Bizzaroverse.
image image
See? No real difference.
To be honest, he is right. I mean, not the constitution part, I wouldn't know about that as I am not an American.
But it DID reduce individual liberty. Unfortunately, individual liberty can both mean good things and bad things. And drawing a line "between" the two fails horribly most of the time.
What should have been done is for the people to be given the correct education as well as state employees should not be allowed to discriminate based on color.
@Brendan Rizzo - Trust me, Ron Paul is NOT the face of most libertarians, including me. He has many positions that I disagree with on moral and practical levels.
So-called "libertarians" like Ron Paul just reinforce the perception that Libertarians are just Republicans who have tried marijuana. Unless he wants "state's rights" to decide that too.
You know what else bothers me about this quote? A law, by itself, isn't going to promote a way of thinking, i.e. racial harmony. Changing people's minds is a slow process that's still going on, but changing their actions, or the resources people victimized by their actions have, CAN be done by the law. Criticizing a law for NOT BEING A MIND-CONTROL DEVICE is a bit unfair even for a LOLbertarian.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
