Replies

The 14th Amendment did extend the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights to the states. This amendment would have justified the elimination of laws that required separation of the races in public accomodations or inferior treatment with respect to government services, such as public schools or city-owned transit. However, the "public accomodation" provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Housing Act of 1968 went beyond the powers granted under the 14th Amendment. These acts extended Federal authority into private matters, such as the sale of housing, the rental or sale of real property, and the operation of common carriers such as bus lines. If one adheres to the original intent of the Framers, these acts were not justified under the Constitution.

If you are embarassed by the Dixiecrats espousing states' rights, are you also embarassed by the Ku Klux Klan's support of the Second Amendment or the ACLU's defense of the First Amendment? Because the People for the American Way support separation of church and state, would you call for a theocracy? Should we have stayed out of the European theater of World War II because Joe Stalin was our ally? Should we not have signed a defense treaty with Spain because Franco was an autocratic dictator? The liberals will use any wedge, legitimate or not, to attack conservative positions.

Conservatives must sear into their consciences two facts: they will never please liberals and they should not try to do so. Lott's remarks only set back states rights to the extent that conservatives let themselves be cowed by the liberal media and mainstream culture.

I tend to agree about the 14th Amendment but conservatives dropped the ball by not pushing for enforcement of the plain language of the 15th amendment which, had it been enforced, would have taken all the steam out of the push for the CR of 1964. Unfortunately, Thurmond and company were bitter enemies of the 15th amendment. Their goal was to keep blacks in second class status, pure and simple.

These acts extended Federal authority into private matters, such as the sale of housing, the rental or sale of real property, and the operation of common carriers such as bus lines. If one adheres to the original intent of the Framers, these acts were not justified under the Constitution.

I agree. Federal action seldom stops where it should - therefore, the states would have been better off reforming themselves rather than creating a situation where the feds were justified in acting. As a result, we are ALL paying for it now.

If you are embarassed by the Dixiecrats espousing states' rights, are you also embarassed by the Ku Klux Klan's support of the Second Amendment or the ACLU's defense of the First Amendment?

I would not stand with the KKK on the 2nd A - I would distance myself, because the gun-grabbers would use the KKK to paint us all as racist gun nuts. The ACLU is nowhere near the same as the KKK - I can agree with a group in some areas and disagree in others - it is not an all or nothing proposition, whether you try to make it such.

Because the People for the American Way support separation of church and state, would you call for a theocracy?

That's an absurd attempt at logic.

Should we have stayed out of the European theater of World War II because Joe Stalin was our ally?

Sometimes you don't have a choice. But it's silly to try to equate WWII with fighting segregationism and bigotry.