[Wallace T.]

No. I only desire that the Federal government be restricted to only those powers delineated to it under the Constitution. I would also prefer that governmental authority, especially on the Federal level, not restrict the exercise of property rights nor inhibit freedom of association. If that leads to greater mingling or increased separation of the races, so be it.

[vbmoneyspender]

No. I only desire that the Federal government be restricted to only those powers delineated to it under the Constitution. I would also prefer that governmental authority, especially on the Federal level, not restrict the exercise of property rights nor inhibit freedom of association. If that leads to greater mingling or increased separation of the races, so be it.

That is all fine and well, but explain to me how you would have gotten rid of Jim Crow, or slavery for that matter, without federal involvement.

[dirtboy]

I only desire that the Federal government be restricted to only those powers delineated to it under the Constitution.

And eliminating Jim Crow was a valid federal action under the Constitution. States do NOT have the right to violate the fundamental constitutional rights of their citizens - and Jim Crow was a direct affront to the concept of equal protection. The Dixiecrats took a noble concept, states rights, and, by trying to wrap it around their sordid actions, instead fouled the core concepts they claimed they were standing for - and to this day, opponents of states rights simply point to 1948 as an effective means of trashing any good arguments in favor of states rights. And by bringing this up now, Lott just set federalism back several years.