What does "civil rights" mean to you?

[manifold]

Perhaps I'm an old school traditionalist and literalist, but to me a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. Such as imprisoning political dissenters, denying due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It is NOT a government imposed, arbitrary determination of fairness. In fact, I submit that if the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection.

What does civil rights mean to you?

 

[Modbert]

Not saying this so much to you Mani as in general. However, people must remember that the Civil Rights Act was not passed in 2010, it was passed in 1964. A much different time, a much different world. Across the entire country, racism was rampant to the point that people who were non-white had their civil rights violated beyond just not being able to sit at a lunch counter. They were given roadblock after roadblock to not even being able to vote, something that people often take for granted today.

Not only that, but the laws of the time made it highly difficult to even make a living for one's family.

Here in 2010, we may look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unnecessary and unconstitutional, but at the time it was necessary.

 

[manifold]

Not saying this so much to you Mani as in general. However, people must remember that the Civil Rights Act was not passed in 2010, it was passed in 1964. A much different time, a much different world. Across the entire country, racism was rampant to the point that people who were non-white had their civil rights violated beyond just not being able to sit at a lunch counter. They were given roadblock after roadblock to not even being able to vote, something that people often take for granted today.

Not only that, but the laws of the time made it highly difficult to even make a living for one's family.

Here in 2010, we may look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unnecessary and unconstitutional, but at the time it was necessary.

Eliminating racist policies of government was (and is always) necessary.

Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary.

 

[Modbert]

Eliminating racist policies of government was (and is always) necessary.

Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary.

Well let's put it this way. In a area of three small towns, there are only four doctors. All four doctors are racist, and refuse to treat anyone who is non-white. People who are non-white get sick, they may die. Then what?

I'm not saying whether it was constitutional, I'm not saying whether I agree with the premise in 2010. I'm saying that back in 1964, being racist is not looked down upon as it is for the most part. In fact, being racist was expected of many people. It was ingrained to kids by their parents, etc.

But like I said, in 2010, times are thankfully different.

 

[manifold]

Eliminating racist policies of government was (and is always) necessary.

Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary.

Well let's put it this way. In a area of three small towns, there are only four doctors. All four doctors are racist, and refuse to treat anyone who is non-white. People who are non-white get sick, they may die. Then what?

I'm not saying whether it was constitutional, I'm not saying whether I agree with the premise in 2010. I'm saying that back in 1964, being racist is not looked down upon as it is for the most part. In fact, being racist was expected of many people. It was ingrained to kids by their parents, etc.

But like I said, in 2010, times are thankfully different.

Point taken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The interference of federalism occurred because state and local governments as well as private business, just not in the traditional South but in the country, denied millions basic due process and fair treatment.

We got the Civil Rights bill because We the People failed to live up to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

The interference of federalism occurred because state and local governments as well as private business, just not in the traditional South but in the country, denied millions basic due process and fair treatment.

We got the Civil Rights bill because We the People failed to live up to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Exactly.

btw, mani, next time instead of weaseling out of a discussion to start your own copy cat thread, why not just reply?

 

[Luissa]

Eliminating racist policies of government was (and is always) necessary.

Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary.

Well let's put it this way. In a area of three small towns, there are only four doctors. All four doctors are racist, and refuse to treat anyone who is non-white. People who are non-white get sick, they may die. Then what?

I'm not saying whether it was constitutional, I'm not saying whether I agree with the premise in 2010. I'm saying that back in 1964, being racist is not looked down upon as it is for the most part. In fact, being racist was expected of many people. It was ingrained to kids by their parents, etc.

But like I said, in 2010, times are thankfully different.

Things are different because the we didn't allow business owners to discriminate.
Personally I like the fact I don't live in 1950.

 

[Modbert]

Things are different because the we didn't allow business owners to discriminate.
Personally I like the fact I don't live in 1950.

Well there's also the fact that the number of racists in this country has also sharply decreased in terms of percentage since 1950. Like I said in my very first post in response to Mani, in 1964 it was necessary.

 

[Luissa]

They decreases because people learned they can't treat people a certain way.
If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some dogs do not learn new tricks, but the club catches their attention. I know some folks here in my town that would love to go back to the bad old days so they could get some of those good paying jobs blacks have earned and they have not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not saying this so much to you Mani as in general. However, people must remember that the Civil Rights Act was not passed in 2010, it was passed in 1964. A much different time, a much different world. Across the entire country, racism was rampant to the point that people who were non-white had their civil rights violated beyond just not being able to sit at a lunch counter. They were given roadblock after roadblock to not even being able to vote, something that people often take for granted today.

Not only that, but the laws of the time made it highly difficult to even make a living for one's family.

Here in 2010, we may look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unnecessary and unconstitutional, but at the time it was necessary.

I agree with everything you said. If I had been of age back then I would probably have supported it, even though I think portions of it are unconstitutional. Most of it is constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QW's comment raises real implications to consider. If an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., do we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.

 

[Modbert]

They decreases because people learned they can't treat people a certain way.
If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

Indeed, which is why I thought it was necessary. That, and because the older generations died out while the younger generations took over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW's comment raises real implications to consider. If an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., do we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.

The CRA was necessary and mostly constitutional. SCOTUS has struck down small portions of laws wile permitting most of them before.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps I'm an old school traditionalist and literalist[sic], but to me a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. Such as imprisoning political dissenters, denying due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It is NOT a government imposed, arbitrary determination of fairness. In fact, I submit that if the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection.

What does civil rights mean to you?

Not what you say it does?

---

 

[Anguille]

The interference of federalism occurred because state and local governments as well as private business, just not in the traditional South but in the country, denied millions basic due process and fair treatment.

We got the Civil Rights bill because We the People failed to live up to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.

That's it. In a nutshell.

 

[Anguille]

Things are different because the we didn't allow business owners to discriminate.
Personally I like the fact I don't live in 1950.

Well there's also the fact that the number of racists in this country has also sharply decreased in terms of percentage since 1950. Like I said in my very first post in response to Mani, in 1964 it was necessary.

Link?

 

[Anguille]

They decreases because people learned they can't treat people a certain way.
If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

Racism has become less obvious, people are less willing to admit to it, but it still exists and evolves with the changing demographics of out country.

 

[Anguille]

Some dogs do not learn new tricks, but the club catches their attention. I know some folks here in my town that would love to go back to the bad old days so they could get some of those good paying jobs blacks have earned and they have not.

I think there is something quasi innate about racism. Back when we were hunter-gathers and lived in clans, it may have helped maintain social cohesion during times of clan rivalry.