- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is MLK's Civil Rights Act Constitutional?
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:35 pm
I know this is controversial to even talk about that era or MLK in any way critical. But how is all of the legislation passed in that period any bit Constitutional?
Speaking specifically about anything that demands a private business behave in a specific way, or requires quotas based on skin color to be Constitutional?
I wouldn't mind seeing someone go at the minority business that get special privileges (via government mandate) because of their skin color.
Speaking specifically about anything that demands a private business behave in a specific way, or requires quotas based on skin color to be Constitutional?
I wouldn't mind seeing someone go at the minority business that get special privileges (via government mandate) because of their skin color.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:39 pm to burger bearcat
It wasn’t and it should be repealed. They should have repealed the laws that forced segregation and discrimination, but left private entities alone.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:39 pm to burger bearcat
quote:"I think that half a decade of legislation is all unconstitutional. Discuss.". FFS
I know this is controversial to even talk about that era or MLK in any way critical. But how is all of the legislation passed in that period any bit Constitutional?
The vast majority of the mid-60s civil rights legislation has been challenged ad nauseam on Constitutional bases. It is still standing after decades of near-continuous SCOTUS review.
Get a syllabus from your local community college. They probably have a one-semester course on the subject.
if you want to discuss one particular provision, that might be worthwhile.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The vast majority of the mid-60s civil rights legislation has been challenged ad nauseam on Constitutional bases. It is still standing after near-continuous SCOTUS review.
One of the many reasons the Supreme Court is a retarded clown show.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:46 pm to burger bearcat
IIRC a main selling point in the legislation is that it has an expiration date, meaning 'we're just correcting some problems, when the corrections are done we end the programs', and now we have an issue with things not being shut down. This is why we have Harvard being openly racist against Asians and thinking they can get away with it.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:50 pm to AggieHank86
It is unconstitutional but scotus wouldn’t dare strike it down due to public perception
It expires again in 2031 but will likely be extended, again
It expires again in 2031 but will likely be extended, again
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:04 pm to burger bearcat
quote:There were several civil rights bills during reconstruction, and again in the 1955-1965 timeframe. CRA of 1964 gets all the airplay.
But how is all of the legislation passed in that period any bit Constitutional?
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:06 pm to burger bearcat
Goldwater didn't think so.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:23 pm to burger bearcat
"Speaking specifically about anything that demands a private business behave in a specific way, or requires quotas based on skin color to be Constitutional?"
... serious question here: do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
... serious question here: do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:24 pm to nealnan8
quote:
do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Absolutely.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:33 pm to Flats
quote:
do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Absolutely.
... thanks for your honest answer. How do you feel about an emergency room physician refusing to save the life of, say, a 7 yr old black kid, due to his race? Many doctors are their own private business. Not trolling, mind you, but this is a common scenario when people argue this particular point.
do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Absolutely.
... thanks for your honest answer. How do you feel about an emergency room physician refusing to save the life of, say, a 7 yr old black kid, due to his race? Many doctors are their own private business. Not trolling, mind you, but this is a common scenario when people argue this particular point.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:38 pm to nealnan8
quote:
... thanks for your honest answer. How do you feel about an emergency room physician refusing to save the life of, say, a 7 yr old black kid, due to his race? Many doctors are their own private business. Not trolling, mind you, but this is a common scenario when people argue this particular point.
You're right.
And how about a black doctor refusing to save the life of a white kid?
A privately owned utility refusing to cut the power on to your house?
A black realtor refusing to show you a house?
How about your privately owned company where you work hiring a black supervisor who decides to fire you because you're white?
Etc., etc.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:39 pm to Flats
quote:
do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Absolutely.
No one on this board who has two brain cells together believes for one minute that you would sit still and accept being discriminated as you suggest.
I mean, as the other guy pointed out in a much more civil tone, you have to be pretty fricking stupid to believe this.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:42 pm to nealnan8
quote:
How do you feel about an emergency room physician refusing to save the life of, say, a 7 yr old black kid, due to his race? Many doctors are their own private business
Wouldn't this run contrary to their sworn Hippocratic Oath and therefore not a tenable scenario, legally speaking?
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:43 pm to BamaGradinTn
Ahh the old "it's a bad idea therefore it's unconstitutional" argument.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:44 pm to nealnan8
quote:Under our constitutional system, the federal government has only those powers assigned to it by the constitution, and the constitution does not give the federal government power to dictate to individuals with whom they must do business.
do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Whether a state government has that power is a different question entirely.
In either case, the market certainly has the power to punish any business which chooses to display such overt racism.
That hypothetical ER physician would probably be violating the Hippocratic oath by refusing to treat that child, and he should lose his license as a result. But the federal government should not compel him. That is simply not the role of the federal government in our system.
The federal government simply does not have the power constitutionally to do everything that “seems like a good idea.“. The notion that the federal government has that much power is what got us into the current mess to begin with.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:48 pm to BamaGradinTn
You may well believe that a White supervisor should not refuse to hire a Black employee. I would agree with you.
But our agreement on the morality of that issue does not change the fact that nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to control the actions of that supervisor. We either have a limited government, or we do not.
Again, however, whether a state government would have that power is a separate and distinct issue.
But our agreement on the morality of that issue does not change the fact that nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to control the actions of that supervisor. We either have a limited government, or we do not.
Again, however, whether a state government would have that power is a separate and distinct issue.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:51 pm to burger bearcat
There was precedent to support the public accommodations portion of the law with respect to hotels, railroads, rental cars, airplanes, etc under the “Right to Travel” as established by Crandel v. Nevada.
The idea was that if you cannot stay in a hotel, buy a plane ticket, etc, you cannot travel. One could argue that similar prohibitions on discrimination by restaurants could also be supported under the same line of thought (if you can’t buy food, you can’t travel).
However, the same logic starts to fall apart once extended to theaters and bars, as you don’t need those to travel. On the flip side, one could argue that access to those spaces are necessary for the freedom of association. What good is a freedom of association if you can be denied a place to gather? However, it also flies in the face of the freedom to choose with whom one associates, so it’s a double-edged sword.
As usual with most sweeping changes in human rights legislation, there are constitutional arguments both for and against which can be made in good faith.
The idea was that if you cannot stay in a hotel, buy a plane ticket, etc, you cannot travel. One could argue that similar prohibitions on discrimination by restaurants could also be supported under the same line of thought (if you can’t buy food, you can’t travel).
However, the same logic starts to fall apart once extended to theaters and bars, as you don’t need those to travel. On the flip side, one could argue that access to those spaces are necessary for the freedom of association. What good is a freedom of association if you can be denied a place to gather? However, it also flies in the face of the freedom to choose with whom one associates, so it’s a double-edged sword.
As usual with most sweeping changes in human rights legislation, there are constitutional arguments both for and against which can be made in good faith.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Roe V Wade was right behind that but everyone serving SCOTUS since then was afraid to address the lack of "right to privacy" in the constitution. Probably have a syllabus on that, too.
The vast majority of the mid-60s civil rights legislation has been challenged ad nauseam on Constitutional bases. It is still standing after decades of near-continuous SCOTUS review.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 4:54 pm to nealnan8
quote:... or gender and bathroom choice? How about the right to refuse business to ex-shoplifters?
do you believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their race or skin color?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News