Posted on 04/15/2008 8:11:30 AM PDT by bmweezer
I didn’t know that.
Thank you for the post, bmweezer.
Thank you, too, nutmeg, for the ping and the link.
That’s a very interesting website.
It wasn't,of use. But the provision that set in motion the references for minorities clearly were. And the Federal interference in employment, housing, and other such matters (impinging on property rights) cannot be justified in the Constitution. It's one thing to invalidate discriminatory laws. It's quite another to violate the Constitution to set up new and different discriminatory laws. That's what the 1964 Civil Rights Act did.
However the bill was later corrupted, here is the vital point: By being againt the bill in any form Goldwater told Black voters that the Republican Party was against civil rights for them. That’s the conclusion Black voters came to. In their minds Goldwater was lumped in with all the segregationists who denied them access to services available to white Americans but not to them. “Your child has an emergency situation that needs good medical care? Go to that inferior Black medical facility miles away from here.” That’s the message Goldwater’s stance was telling Black Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.