[tahiti]

"Maddox claimed he had nothing against blacks, just forced integration. In the end, he sold the restaurant rather than comply with the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act."

This is an important distinction.

Where does the jursidiction of the federal Civil Rights Act within the boundaries of state, emanate?

Some might say, Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3, the "commerce clause."

Let's assume that that is true.

A federal law, even though it may have legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of state, still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

The Civil Rights Act, when applied to Lester Maddox's position on whom he wished to serve and whom he wished not servie violated his constitutional rights under:

Amendment V: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHER RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Lester Maddox was on the right constitutional track, without specifically referencing the 9th amendment, when he stated,

"As well as a constitutional human right to associate with whomever you please, there should be a corresponding right to disassociate if you please,"

[tallhappy]

Your post 24 is an example of the big problem.

You can't spin it away.

You give fodder for idiots like Randy Newman.