The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $unreadreports - Line: 32 - File: global.php(961) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/global.php(961) : eval()'d code 32 errorHandler->error_callback
/global.php 961 eval
/showthread.php 28 require_once




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hungary Keeps looking Better
#11
Civil Rights, huh?
Allow Ron Paul explain this to you:
On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#12
Mr Paul was never a fan of rights or of human compassion and decency either. Thankfully he had relegated himself the stature of a grumpy old crank. In his mind everything, but EVERYTHING ,he didn't like just happened to unconstitutional. Got kinda old. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is constitutional, sorry.

Paul's victims of the Act are imagined.
Quotas were not in the Act
Paul inferred "intent" in the Commerce clause.The moldy oldy "intent" argument are hopes and dreams. Words are words, facts are facts.
Expanded federal power, yes. Reduced liberty, really ?

I will agree with one thing he wrote. Race relations have not improved. But I don't think that expanding rights to everyone is the culprit.
Reply
#13
Quote:Mr Paul was never a fan of rights or of human compassion and decency either.
I would compare Ron's compassion and decency to say - Bubba's - who bombed the shit out of Bosnia, killing thousands upon thousands of innocents or his sanctions on Iraq for his entire tenure killing at least a million and-a- half people denying them medicine, clean water, and food - all of which Ron Paul vehemently opposed. Just like he opposed the Iraq war, bombing Libya and killing Ghadafi among other acts of aggression proposed by the war mongers in power.

As far as your other nonsense, show me in the Constitution where the government has any legitimate authority to be involved in healthcare, medicine, education or a business owners hiring or payroll. Even my one-eyed potato can see that government overreach decreases individual liberty and is detrimental to freedom and our pursuits of our goals and aspirations.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#14
Paul was for foreign aid but not domestic aid. That makes sense.

I'd like to hear which liberty the civil rights act decreased
Reply
#15
Quote:Paul was for foreign aid but not domestic aid. That makes sense.
He never voted 'yes' for a bill that contained either.

Clearly you didn't read Paul's objection in his statement to the House regarding the CR Bill.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)