10-24-2018, 11:04 AM
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.
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.