We'd Never Pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act Today

American Greatness ^ | 09/12/2016 | Chris Buskirk

[semperfidevildog]

Congress would never pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 today. There would be no need. And therein lies the root of the deepening crisis facing the republic.

But such a campaign to persuade the American people and earn their support would not—does not—happen today. Today, such important matters are diligently kept from the hands of voters and handed over to judges and powerful commissars in places like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. No voter persuasion is required.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hubert Humphrey, in the face of Goldwater’s criticisms, said that if the bill led to racial quotas, he’d eat his hat. Goldwater bought him a hat.

Of course it didn't do any good. I have been cynical a long time now, and I would dare say the Civil Rights act of 1964 had a lot more to do with the 24th amendment than it did with any concern about civil rights.

[DiogenesLamp]

Freedom, though not perfect is always a better alternative than the tyranny of unconstitutional federal acts. This great, unconstitutional federal power grab has done vastly more harm than good and has extended federal power way beyond what the Constitution contemplates. Everyone is worse off because of this Act and other acts of federal tyranny.

Agreed.

[Jim W N]

It is important to distinguish which laws, state or federal.

The "equal protection" clause which has been twisted and brutalized by the Left, really meant that state segregation laws were invalid and gave the feds power to overturn such state laws. That is it, as confirmed by the Slaughterhouse Cases opinion in 1873.

The feds have no constitutional authority to force integration.

[Altura Ct.]

The so called ‘civil rights’ act is used as the battering ram for anti-white laws and regulations.

[Jim W N]

Preaching to the choir Bro. Shout it from the rooftops my FRiend.

[LambSlave]

This leads into the splintering of the national culture and the tearing down of the national will through divisions. Eventually it may become a takeover target of a more culturally unified and confident foe.

Yes, almost as if by design. I think the original intent was probably not malevolent, but now it is just another sociopolitical tool to be exploited to destroy our national Christian heritage.

[aquila48]

I think there’s little doubt that the left intentionally creates and promotes these divisions - they do that in the guise of multiculturalism, diversity, open borders, attacks on the family, control of the institutions, etc.

They’ve been quite successful, too.

You’ve probably seen this video by Yuri Bezmenov on subversion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAYQ-rfj1CI

[TBP]

The feds have no constitutional authority to force integration.

Nor do the states, under the very same clause adn the very same principles.

[Jim W N]

It is important to understand that the Constitution presumes what is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence: that God (not government) has given individuals the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness among other God-given rights. As the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm, the states and the people retain all rights and powers not delegated to the feds by the Constitution or forbidden by it to the states.

The feds only legitimate authority is 1) that which is delegated and enumerated in the Constitution and 2) that which is prohibited to the states. Outside the Constitution, the states and the people retain all their rights and powers. That is what state sovereignty is.

The Constitution expressly forbids the states from segregation laws in the 14A under equal protection, so the feds have enforcement power there. The Constitution does not forbid states from integration laws, so the states retain the right and power to force integration. Integration is a states issue to be decided by the people of that state.