Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[Lakhota]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

So what? That was then - this is NOW. Republicans are now the KKK. Things change. Shit happens. People evolve (except NaziCons).

 

[dblack]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Sir we have a Constitutional Amendment which states that already

Would be akin to passing a law that says the government can't take away guns. Why bother?

Because some folks like to take liberties with "interpreting" the Constitution. And it doesn't hurt to reiterate and underline the stuff that is most important.

Of course it hurts when you have it angling around for no reason other than to divide the country. Do we need the government to tell us how to get along or are we all grown up now? I think we're big boys and girls. I think if you want to keep the Civil Rights Act...you are a racist.

Wanting to take no action on an existing legislation that prohibits discrimination --- that's what "racism" is??

Are you on some kind of experimental medication?

The right to discriminate, to decide for yourself who you work, live, eat and sleep with - no matter how irrational or petty your reasons - is fundamental to human freedom and dignity

 

[Nyvin]

I agree that it's wrong for the law to work against (or for) any specific people or groups. But the rest of this is bunk.

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

The Democrats had 63 seats in the Senate and 258 seats in the House in 1964...if they wanted to obstruct the Civil Rights Act they sure as hell did a damn horrible job at it.....

 

[Lakhota]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

If true, so what? That was then - this is NOW. Republicans are now the KKK. Things change. Shit happens. People evolve (except NaziCons).

 

[Rikurzhen]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

I'm sure that you had something in mind when you wrote the above but I didn't get what it was. When you strip out all of the aspects you mentioned, what was the core redeeming value that you see embedded in the CRA? What's left over?

Titles 3, 6, 8, and 9 all seem worthwhile as clarifications of equal protection obligations.

I think you're right. Clarifications don't hurt.

 

[Pogo]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Sir we have a Constitutional Amendment which states that already

Would be akin to passing a law that says the government can't take away guns. Why bother?

Because some folks like to take liberties with "interpreting" the Constitution. And it doesn't hurt to reiterate and underline the stuff that is most important.

Of course it hurts when you have it angling around for no reason other than to divide the country. Do we need the government to tell us how to get along or are we all grown up now? I think we're big boys and girls. I think if you want to keep the Civil Rights Act...you are a racist.

Wanting to take no action on an existing legislation that prohibits discrimination --- that's what "racism" is??

Are you on some kind of experimental medication?

The right to discriminate, to decide for yourself who you work, live, eat and sleep with - no matter how irrational or petty your reasons - is fundamental to human freedom and dignity

That has zero to do with the CRA. Try to stay on topic.

 

[auditor0007]

If that we're not a concern, if racists did not want to continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, there would be no one wanting to repeal it. Read the daily news. What is needed is to strengthen the law.

I do read the news. As a whole Americans get along great. Throw out this divisive reminder of the past. It would be a breath of fresh air, a rebirth of sorts.

This idea that everyone gets along great now and that Blacks are never discriminated against anymore just shows how long you have had your head stuck in the sand. Either that or you are just so far removed from minorities that you have no clue. Either way, wake up.

 

[auditor0007]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...

it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.

Sir we have a Constitutional Amendment which states that already

Would be akin to passing a law that says the government can't take away guns. Why bother?

You do realize that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only people they were really referring to were white land owners, right?

 

[Rikurzhen]

If that we're not a concern, if racists did not want to continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, there would be no one wanting to repeal it. Read the daily news. What is needed is to strengthen the law.

I do read the news. As a whole Americans get along great. Throw out this divisive reminder of the past. It would be a breath of fresh air, a rebirth of sorts.

This idea that everyone gets along great now and that Blacks are never discriminated against anymore just shows how long you have had your head stuck in the sand. Either that or you are just so far removed from minorities that you have no clue. Either way, wake up.

What does that have to do with Civil Rights? If dweebs are discriminated against by women and never get dates, how does forcing women to date these men solve a problem? You've just now trampled over the rights of women to choose their own associations. Sure, dweebs are happy because women talk to them now, but putting a gun to a woman's head to stop her from discriminating doesn't really seem to be a viable solution.

We stopped GOVERNMENT from playing favorites, from discriminating against certain of its citizens. Mission accomplished, long ago.

 

[Pogo]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

First, there's no such thing. There has never been a "Democrat Party". But the Democratic President was the force behind making it happen. If you Revisionistas at the Ministry of Truth only knew how pathetically hilarious you look...

And btw there is also no political party of any name anywhere, any time, that has any kind of control over "peer pressure".

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

We have segregation now. NAACP, UNCF, BET, CBC, the entire democrat party, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

Those Democrats were conservatives.

It's quite an argument you have there that giving blacks the equal right to patronize businesses that might otherwise want to refuse them service is a trick to keep them on the 'plantation'.

That makes even less sense than you normally do, and your normal is notoriously lacking to begin with.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

Those Democrats were conservatives.

Now pay attention. "Those Democrats were conservative." How do you know? Who said so? Wouldn't a good test of your fantasy position be that most of those Democrats switched party allegiance to become Republicans? Well, did they switch parties? You can probably guess that I already know the answer and that you don't:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
​

I'd appreciate if you could do me a favor, I have an ongoing study of how liberals come to be so brainwashed about reality and it would help me if you could explain exactly how you came to believe a false reality? Who did this to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

Those Democrats were conservatives.

Now pay attention. "Those Democrats were conservative." How do you know? Who said so? Wouldn't a good test of your fantasy position be that most of those Democrats switched party allegiance to become Republicans? Well, did they switch parties? You can probably guess that I already know the answer and that you don't:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
​

I'd appreciate if you could do me a favor, I have an ongoing study of how liberals come to be so brainwashed about reality and it would help me if you could explain exactly how you came to believe a false reality? Who did this to you?

How do I know? For starters, because they called themselves the Conservative Coalition.

Google it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

This is comprehensively ignorant and ridiculous.


The Civil Rights Division investigates allegations of civil rights violations in accordance with the law, to fail to investigate possible civil rights violations would be for the Division to disregard the law.


And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is needed as much today as when it was enacted, as there are still those hostile to the civil liberties of citizens motivated by fear, ignorance, and hate – there are posts in this very forum that are proof of that.


That you and others on the right don't consider potential civil rights violations to indeed be civil rights violations is thankfully irrelevant, as that's determined pursuant to the facts, evidence, and law, not blind, subjective rightwing partisanism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

Those Democrats were conservatives.

Now pay attention. "Those Democrats were conservative." How do you know? Who said so? Wouldn't a good test of your fantasy position be that most of those Democrats switched party allegiance to become Republicans? Well, did they switch parties? You can probably guess that I already know the answer and that you don't:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
​

I'd appreciate if you could do me a favor, I have an ongoing study of how liberals come to be so brainwashed about reality and it would help me if you could explain exactly how you came to believe a false reality? Who did this to you?

Nobody flipped? How is it then that Goldwater won Mississippi with 88% of the vote in 1964? A state that had not voted Republican for decades.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you repeal a law that is working? ...unless of course you didn't like the fact that it was working...

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

The Civil Rights Act is divisive?

...but this wasn't?

 

[Agit8r]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

As long as states elect nutjobs to their legislatures who pass laws that require people to show papers based on nothing more than their ethnic appearance, we will need laws that restrain those states and their racist citizens.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed

Those Democrats were conservatives.

Now pay attention. "Those Democrats were conservative." How do you know? Who said so? Wouldn't a good test of your fantasy position be that most of those Democrats switched party allegiance to become Republicans? Well, did they switch parties? You can probably guess that I already know the answer and that you don't:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
​

I'd appreciate if you could do me a favor, I have an ongoing study of how liberals come to be so brainwashed about reality and it would help me if you could explain exactly how you came to believe a false reality? Who did this to you?

Nobody flipped? How is it then that Goldwater won Mississippi with 88% of the vote in 1964? A state that had not voted Republican for decades.

How is it that Carter had a clean sweep of the South?