May 20, 2010
— Ace
The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were approved by Congress and ratified by the states after the U.S. CIVIL WAR. Known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, they were designed to protect individual rights. The Thirteenth Amendment forbids INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE or SLAVERY, except where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime.
For many decades, however, the goals of the Civil War Amendments were frustrated. Due perhaps to the waning public support for postwar Reconstruction and the nation's lack of sensitivity to individual rights, the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailed the application of the amendments. The Supreme Court thwarted the amendments in two ways: by restrictively interpreting the substantive provisions of the amendments and by rigidly confining Congress's enforcement power.
Congress enacted a number of statutes to enforce the provisions of the Civil War Amendments, but by the end of the nineteenth century, most of those statutes had been overturned by the courts, repealed, or nullified by subsequent legislation. For example, Congress enacted the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1875 (18 Stat. 336), which provided that all persons should have full and equal enjoyment of public inns, parks, theaters, and other places of amusement, regardless of race or color. Although some federal courts upheld the constitutionality of the act, many courts struck it down. These decisions were then appealed together to the U.S. Supreme Court and became known as the CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 (1883). The cases involved theaters in New York and California that would not seat African Americans, a hotel in Missouri and a restaurant in Kansas that would not serve African Americans, and a train in Tennessee that would not allow an African American woman in the "ladies" car.
I don't see the point in attempting to relitigate the Civil War. Or, I should say, I see no defensible point in relitigating the Civil War. I see several mistaken reasons for so attempting it (a misplaced notion of Southern honor and very poor choice of selective defiance) and some outright awful reasons to do so.
The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were specifically enacted with the purpose of eradicating slavery and duly -- constitutionally -- empowered Congress to pass legislation in furtherance of this purpose. To say such laws are "unconstitutional" is simply in error -- previous to the lawful and constitutional passage of those amendments, such laws would have indeed have been unconstitutional and an unlawful overreach of granted Congressional power.
After their lawful passage, however, Congress did have that authority.
That was the whole point of the Amendments -- to amend the Constitution such as to grant it power in a sphere it had previously not had.
One can call Prohibition many things -- unwise, ill-considered, counterproductive, antithetical to liberty -- but one can't call it was unconstitutional. Previous to the 18th Amendment, the federal government had no lawful power to prohibit alcohol. After the passage of the 18th Amendement, however, Congress' power to outlaw liquor could not be doubted -- that was the entire point of the amendment, to grant Congress the power to enforce a ban on the sale and transportation of liquor.
I repeat: This was the entire point, and indeed this is always the point of an Amendment, to change the Constitution.
If you want to keep the Constitution as-is, you don't amend it.
It seems to me that people who wish to doubt the consitutionality of the Civil Rights Act can only do so by ignoring parts of the Constitution themselves, specifically, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which together outlawed slavery (and, it was intended, all badges (identifiers) of servitude).
These Amendments are also part of the Constitution. Same as the 18th Amendment was part of the Constitution after it passed. (Until the Constitution was changed again by the 21st Amendment and Prohibition was lifted.)
Note the date of the Civil Rights Acts being discussed in that passage above -- one was promulgated in 1866.
The next was, in 1875. It was not some newfangled, Warren Court Era idea that blacks should not be denied admittance to theaters or service at a public house. Note that date: This is just five years after the last of the Reconstruction Amendments and nine years after the first one. (13th in 1866, 14th in 1868, 15th in 1870.) The Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was comprised of nearly the exact same men who had passed the Reconstruction Amendments -- in other words, they were uniquely positioned to divine the intent of the drafters of that part of the Constitution, since, of course, they did draft that part of the Constitution.
Courts struck down Congress' laws, claiming the amendments only banned slavery itself -- period, full stop -- and completely permitted -- nay, blessed -- the creation of a pseudo-slavery rigid racial caste system.
The Courts were in error, and were rejecting the clear intent and broad powers of enforcement contained in the Amendments because they disagreed with those Amendments. We know what Congress intended. We know their "original intent." We know that because between five and nine years after voting for the Reconstruction Amendments they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Conservatives are fond of the interpretive doctrine of original intent -- what the people who wrote the Constitution actually intended -- evidenced by how they behaved shortly after writing it -- should be an important factor in interpretation. (Side note, I'm not strictly an original intent guy myself, because I think Scalia is a genius and therefore he must be right: Scalia is a textualist -- the words mean what they mean -- but he does use original intent as a clue for interpreting what the words mean, or meant at the time they were written. The distinction here is that if the Constitution's words plainly (to Scalia) mean A, but common practice at the time was to ignore that plain meaning and do B, he will decide A is the proper interpretation, and B was in error from the outset, whereas an original intent-er might side with B.)
The original intent of these amendments was -- rather plainly, I think -- to end slavery and everything like slavery, and to eradicate the original contradiction in the Constitution -- that men were free, and yet one man could own another like property or a farm animal -- and make the Constitution say what it always should havesaid.
Now, one can get cutesy and say "In that case, those who wrote these Amendments botched it, made an error in drafting, because while they may have intended to outlaw a rigid racial caste system in which some men were plainly -- legally -- inferior to others, they didn't actually say that."
To which I'd reply: I can see how you'd make such an argument. But I don't see why you'd make it. Resorting to a claim like "ha-ha, they got sloppy in their drafting of the Amendments, we win, we get to create and enforce through law a rigid racial caste system" seems... I don't know what it seems like.
I don't read an awful lot into the drafters of this Amendment failing to anticipate a legally enforced regime of rigid racial castes. Perhaps they did fail to realize that this would be the answer from a defiant South, pretty angry about a four year, bloody Civil War that killed millions and, to their minds, an illegal one at that.
But so what? It is hardly the biggest Constitutional stretch in history to think that the an amendment enacted to end "slavery" based on race can reasonably be read to encompass a harsh racial caste system and de facto peonage. (And on peons: Peasants in feudal society weren't technically slaves, but they were peons, persons with sharply-curtailed rights and certain obligations (including deference) to their social betters/masters. I think a fair reading of "slavery" includes the idea of "peonage," too. Unless there is some critical constitutional point here to be vindicated, I do not see any defensible purpose in arguing these amendments outlawed slavery but gave full constitutional blessing to regime of enforced peonage.)
At any rate: I don't just think that this position -- that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional -- is something that's actually true but we shouldn't fight too much against it because it would be impolitic and unpopular to do so. I happen to think it's flat wrong, too, and that is really little question that the Amendments meant what they seemed to mean.
The caste system was permitted -- in error. The nation was simply exhausted of this fight and unwilling to re-fight the Civil War, especially because, in final analysis, Who cares about a bunch of blacks, anyway? And that attitude existed in the North, of course.
But the fact that those charged with faithfully executing the Constitution simply gave up trying to enforce it out of a combination of exhaustion and indifference -- while others actively resisted it because they did not, in fact, wish to abide by the Constitution as it was currently written -- is hardly equal to the Constitution blessing these practices.
The Constitution didn't bless them -- the nation just chose to ignore the Constitution because it had better things to do than perpetually fight over the rights of blacks. (And, again: Who cares about them anyway?)
I understand the frustration that many conservatives feel at vague notions of "civil rights" always being suddenly discovered in the Constitution. I feel that frustration too -- and I don't agree with this philosophy, that civil rights and the Civil War can perpetually be invoked to justify whatever power-grab or reduction of liberty the government has in mind this year.
But I disagree strongly with how libertarians (and, frankly, Confederate Revanchists) fight it, by claiming -- with those initial 1875-1890 courts, which were in error -- that all of this was perfectly legal and no business of the federal government whatsoever.
The federal government had made it its business through these amendments. And I repeat-- an amendment is a part of the Constitution, with as much force as any other part of it, whether in the first document or the Bill of Rights.
The same way the Constitution once blessed slavery-- it was wrong, but it was, in fact, constitutional -- it now changed to outlaw it, and all of its badges. One can disagree with that amendment -- if one feels so compelled -- but one can't really claim the Constitution is itself unconstitutional.
Certainly I agree with the conservative take about just about all of this: I agree that this limited authority to reduce freedom in this one area has been used, unlawfully and improperly, as a general land-grab authority to seize entire swathes of the landscape of personal freedom. Certainly I'd like to see a rollback of illegal -- unconstitutional -- quota systems, blessed by a Court in error, which make it lawful to discriminate against a man based on the color of his skin, and unjustly reward another man for his skin color.
I also agree wholeheartedly that coercion is like a drug, and once the government gets a taste of it, it quickly gets addicted, and soon decides that coercion is the fast, cheapest, easiest, best manner to defeat the ever-increasing list of monsters that need eradicating.
And all of that.
And I sure wouldn't mind hearing Rand Paul say things like that.
But I think it is simply wrong -- and libertarian doctrine gone goofy, very selectively reading the Constitution, and ignoring the parts that plainly say "the government shall have constitutional power in this area" -- to say that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional as written, that the government didn't have that power, that "boycotts" and other manners of non-state, non-coercive action were the only permissible way to go, etc.
I don't think it's a simply a manner of RINO-ish compromise and go-along-to-get-along. I think the opposite position is simply false, and, indeed, unconstitutional, and as unconstitutional as the current regime of the racial spoils system.
The Amendments were enacted for this purpose.
In 1789, the Constitution should have outlawed slavery, if it was true to its own spirit -- but practical considerations prevailed, and slavery was blessed.
In 1866, the Constitution should have outlawed slavery, but, in response, a slavery-like rigid racial caste system was created, frustrating the plain goal of the Reconstruction Amendments.
In 1875, the Civil Rights Act should Have outlawed the slavery-like regime taking hold in the South (and, of course, as any Southerner would point out: Already present in a stealthier form in the North), but recalcitrant, revanchich courts claimed the plain intent of the Amendments wasn't really what they intended and, further, the grant of authority to Congress, contained in express language, to further this intent, was unconstitutional; one of those odd cases, we see from time to time, of the Court claiming the Constitution is unconstitutional. Which is really code for I don't agree with the Constitution so I'm going to rewrite it in this here opinion.
Now, in 1968, a new Civil Rights Act is passed, much of it attempting to finally achieve what had been attempted nearly 100 years past in 1875, this one basing its authority partly on the Commerce Clause because the courts had found that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments weren't quite clear enough -- and while the original intent was achieved over several decades, it was controversial as hell every step of the way.
And really, at this point -- in 2010, over 200 years since the Constitution really should have forbidden any of this, and 135 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, passed in the immediate aftermath of the Reconstruction Amendments, by the same men who'd drafted them -- we're still going to sit here arguing about whether this was a good thing?
I suppose some might be offended by this, and say, "Well, as a Northerner, it's pretty easy for you to say all of this, and regurgitate the Yankee side of things." I guess I'd just turn that around and say "As a Southerner, it's easy for you to reject that position."
But what does the Constitution actually say? It says to me -- in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments -- that slavery, vile from the outset, is finally, after long years and bloody civil war, finally outlawed.
I cannot believe that at this late date we're still having an argument over whether it was legally permissible to back-door it back in through Jim Crow.
Why on earth would we even have this argument? We've got live, critical controversies happening right now, but we have to keep an open mind over the question of whether the federal government has the power to eradicate slavery and its badges and incidents? Really?
I know the answer to that is "If you begin with an error, you proceed further and further into error," and thus, it is important to argue about these things.
But I don't believe this began with an error-- or, I mean, the anti-slavery, anti-caste position was not in error at all. The restrictions there on liberty -- that yes, you could be compelled to serve a black man in your shop -- were indeed limits on liberty, but they were specifically blessed in the Constitution. Just like as the case with Prohibition.
The error occurred later -- but no, it's not at all necessary to a argue over the propriety of the Civil Rights Act (pick your version: 1875 and 196
in order to argue against the current wrong of racial preferences and further erosions
of liberty in order to achieve goals having nothing at all to do with slavery at all.
And I know that's possible because I do it myself.
Posted by: Ace at
12:42 PM
| Comments (213)
Post contains 2726 words, total size 17 kb.
Posted by: Mr Whoopi at May 20, 2010 12:45 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: ontherocks at May 20, 2010 12:47 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Mr Whoopi at May 20, 2010 12:47 PM (uFokq)
It seems to me that people who wish to doubt the consitutionality of the Civil Rights Act can only do so by ignoring parts of the Constitution themselves...
Not really. Even where the constituion directs/empowers the congress to pass legislation to further the amendments (in this cas) the act itself must be constitutional in its content. As a matter of fact, the Contituion itself is what gives congress its power to exist and make laws. That does not then deem all of its laws to BE constitutional by virtue of its being empowered to make laws via the Constitution. So, while there can be an Act to deal with civil rights, the Acat must not contain parts or pieces which are unconstituitional and if it does, the law can be stricken by the courts as unconstitutional.
Posted by: rightzilla at May 20, 2010 12:52 PM (rVJH4)
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 20, 2010 12:52 PM (xxgag)
Posted by: Richard Blumenthal at May 20, 2010 12:53 PM (gLNLT)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 20, 2010 12:55 PM (fYgoq)
Posted by: Ella at May 20, 2010 12:55 PM (3ZTpm)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 20, 2010 12:55 PM (7VvJB)
I'm afraid I'm with the "I don't even know why this is an issue right now" crowd. There are a lot of other ways we are going to hell in a handbasket at this moment in history, do we need yet another thing to become distracted by while the administration continues to dismantle our great nation with cheerful disregard to the will of the people?
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 20, 2010 12:57 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 12:58 PM (PUC8V)
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 20, 2010 12:58 PM (vFouJ)
In no place is the federal government empowered to tell or force states to end discrimination. What the US Constitution does not permit, the US federal government MAY NOT DO.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 20, 2010 12:59 PM (PQY7w)
I think Rand Paul is a "I may not agree with what you say, but I will protect your right to say it" kind of guy.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 20, 2010 12:59 PM (0fzsA)
17 I know a certain president that should take some constitutional law classes from you Ace.
Actually, looks like ACE took Con Law from that president........
Posted by: rightzilla at May 20, 2010 12:59 PM (rVJH4)
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 12:59 PM (66DVY)
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 01:00 PM (66DVY)
Posted by: joncelli at May 20, 2010 01:00 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Abraham Lincoln's Zombie at May 20, 2010 01:00 PM (gLNLT)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 01:02 PM (PUC8V)
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 01:02 PM (66DVY)
Posted by: GuyfromNH at May 20, 2010 01:02 PM (GWXuo)
Posted by: Richard Blumenthal
We must accept the fact that this war is lost.
Posted by: Harry 'Copperhead' Reid at May 20, 2010 01:03 PM (R2fpr)
I think I might just hate Southern Revanchists/Irredentists/whatever-you-call-'em more than I hate 9/11 Truthers.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 20, 2010 01:04 PM (l1KFP)
Posted by: Palerider at May 20, 2010 01:04 PM (dkExz)
Posted by: joncelli at May 20, 2010 01:04 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 01:05 PM (PUC8V)
Posted by: Australian Economist at May 20, 2010 01:05 PM (zfRju)
Posted by: Bugler at May 20, 2010 01:05 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 20, 2010 01:05 PM (l1KFP)
Posted by: Palerider
at May 20, 2010 05:04 PM (dkExz)
oh god no
Posted by: fartbubble at May 20, 2010 01:07 PM (gAmQ1)
Posted by: dagny at May 20, 2010 01:08 PM (uUDDq)
Posted by: Abraham Lincoln's Zombie at May 20, 2010 05:00 PM (gLNLT)
We don't need slavery now. We have undocumented immigrants.
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 20, 2010 01:09 PM (xxgag)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 20, 2010 01:09 PM (sGwNK)
Posted by: Adriane at May 20, 2010 01:10 PM (mXBw3)
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Posted by: stuiec at May 20, 2010 01:10 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Firecracker at May 20, 2010 01:12 PM (zfRju)
Posted by: Palerider at May 20, 2010 01:12 PM (dkExz)
Posted by: thatgyuy at May 20, 2010 01:13 PM (IigGr)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 01:13 PM (PUC8V)
I don't see the point in attempting to relitigate the Civil War.
You could never do that because it was The War Between the States.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam at May 20, 2010 01:13 PM (7+pP9)
I thought property rights were the basis of liberty and the politics of Western Civilization. How, in theory does the "right" to another's service (which basically is freedom from discrimination in private establishments) trump the other's property rights?
Posted by: Stan at May 20, 2010 01:14 PM (5Ji8M)
Because the MFM and the Democrats, birm, want us to.
Posted by: damian at May 20, 2010 01:14 PM (4WbTI)
Rand Paul is crazy for fighting this fight.
Even without the ammendments and the civil rights act congress has all the authority it needs under the commerce clause. Pauls agrument from the little I have heard of it is soley based on states rights and that if a state wanted to order a business to admit black people they could but the federal government couldn't. He's wrong and stupid to bring it up.
This would be one of the only uses of the commerce clause that I actually agree with. There are all kinds of reasons for the US to be sure that all of it's citizens can compete and participate in all commerce state to state.
Posted by: robtr at May 20, 2010 01:14 PM (fwSHf)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 20, 2010 01:15 PM (7VvJB)
Posted by: conscious, but quite incoherent at May 20, 2010 01:15 PM (YVZlY)
You could never do that because it was The War Between the States.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam at May 20, 2010 05:13 PM (7+pP9)
Are you gentlemen speaking of the War of Northern Aggression?
Posted by: Sen. Foghorn Claghorn at May 20, 2010 01:15 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: Southern Revanchists, Inc. at May 20, 2010 01:16 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 01:16 PM (Q+ndL)
Posted by: Pelayo at May 20, 2010 01:18 PM (C8qIl)
Case in point: a bank must lend money to a mortgage applicant who does has a lower credit score as a mortgage applicant of a different race with a higher credit score.
How is this justified by the legal history of the eradication of American slavery?
Posted by: Adriane at May 20, 2010 01:18 PM (mXBw3)
Posted by: ontherocks at May 20, 2010 04:47 PM (HBqDo)
With Old Ironsides. Which is funny, because I never thought Raymond Burr was that old. And didn't he find it hard to control his wheelchair when the seas kicked up?
Posted by: Sen. Foghorn Claghorn at May 20, 2010 01:18 PM (W+GYq)
You're having that one alone, or at least without Paul. Jim Crow was a set of laws. (They were unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court was full of racist assholes. Right.) Paul opposes discrimination by law, as he said. End of that.
He also thinks property rights should work like free-speech rights, because he's kind of a libertarian about some things. So private discrimination, while objectionable to many, and personally objectionable to him, shouldn't be illegal—especially not federally outlawed—on, basically, Constitution-as-is, free-association grounds. And it was a part of a thing called a "Civil Rights Act" that violated that principle of his (while also stopping Jim Crow, coincidentally). So he's not reflexively into it. BFD.
There's an idea actual, serious libertarians (not Paul, because he isn't one) have, that law is only force, and it can only make us worse. They're right. Are there fewer racists now than in the '60s? Fuck no. But there are a hell of a lot more people empowered to force people to act like they're not racist, however the definition of "racist" shifts with power. That's not better. More law, more assholes.
Posted by: oblig. at May 20, 2010 01:19 PM (x7Ao8)
Yep. Sometimes even when you're right (and my hunch is Ace rather than Paul is correct here) you're gonna lose the war a pay a big price for it.
Just when the Democrat/media complex is gearing up to paint Tea Partiers as racist here we have Paul trying to challenge the legal underpinnings or the destruction of Jim Crow. Not smart, politically. Not smart at all.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 01:20 PM (XIXhw)
The Northern states were just as racist and intolerant as the southern states, (in many cases, more so.) but as the vast majority of the black population existed in the southern states, the Amendments didn't really apply to the northern states. It was basically a case of States Ratifying laws that didn't really apply to them, only to other people who weren't allowed to object.
What's really funny is that the Southern Argument before the civil war is that "We Seceded." The Northern argument was "You CAN'T secede!"
After the Civil war, the Southern argument was "Give us our rights. We are a State. " The northern argument was " No you're not. You Seceded!"
Now we may have arrived at a time where the Amendments apply to everyone, and they are proper and correct, but we should never labor under the illusion that they were adopted through the consent of the governed. They were imposed by the victor on the vanquished.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 20, 2010 01:21 PM (eVJ7T)
Posted by: nickless at May 20, 2010 01:21 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Paul at May 20, 2010 01:22 PM (ix2UW)
I'm an umpteenth generation East Tennessean; I have long dead relatives who fought for the North. I am also a member of Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. All you Yankees and Unreconstructed Rebels can all KMA.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 20, 2010 01:22 PM (C8qIl)
Posted by: J Falwell Fudgebunny at May 20, 2010 01:22 PM (zfRju)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 01:22 PM (PUC8V)
Posted by: Are Arepublicans reactionary fuckwits? at May 20, 2010 01:23 PM (6UdAc)
Posted by: Phelps at May 20, 2010 01:23 PM (o/6if)
Even without the amendments and the civil rights act congress has all the authority it needs under the commerce clause.
Only since 1942 and Wickard, buddy. And that's the root of so many of our problems today. The commerce clause cannot be used for regulating non "commerce" activities (literally, buying and selling under the original meaning of the Constitution), such as manufacturing, workplace safety, etc.
It's a travesty that the Commerce Clause is used at all to defend modern legislation.
And the THirteenth is not where you're going to find authority to abolish jim Crow, it's the 14th. On top of which the 14th fundamentally altered teh nature of the constitution (see Akil Amar) by removing the unstated presumption in the origninal constitution that States were the best protectors of individual rights. After the Civil war that was proven to be a false assumption, and hence, the real argument here is over teh impact of the re-ordering of gov't by the 14th amend and not the overall impact of the civil war amendments themselves.
Posted by: s'moron at May 20, 2010 01:24 PM (UaxA0)
I don't disagree that the Reconstruction Amendments outlawed state sponsored segregation but I don't see where in any of those amendments constitute a grant of power to the federal government to order individuals to engage in commerce with each other.
What am I missing?
FTR-As I said earlier, I think the Commerce Clause justification was a sleight of hand but on balance the benefits outweighed the cost, so this is a bit of 'angels on a pinhead' type thing for me.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 01:24 PM (9B5OK)
. He gave a nuanced answer. (The leftimedia loves nuance when it's really just trying to not give an answer that the lefty nuancer knows will reveal him to be a socialist. But when it's actually an attempt to deal with complexity, they have no use for it.) He also said this isn't something that would ever be a subject of any vote or debate.Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 01:24 PM (Q+ndL)
Posted by: andycanuck at May 20, 2010 01:24 PM (7b1Uc)
Posted by: Paul at May 20, 2010 05:22 PM (ix2UW)
You seem to think the rest of the world will sit around until you find perfection. It won't, you will be left behind.
Posted by: robtr at May 20, 2010 01:25 PM (fwSHf)
The only reason we're having this discussion is because tradtional washington conservatives look down their noses at the prospect of someone like Paul becoming senator. One appearance on Madcow and everyone takes the bait like trained rabbits.
When liberals are 100% in opposition you know you've got a decent guy. When liberals and handwringing conservatives are in 100% opposition you know you've got a star.
The civil rights act isn't in play. the finacial reform act is and our moderate champions like Snowe Collins and Brown have opened the gates for this sham.
Posted by: exceller at May 20, 2010 01:25 PM (jx2Td)
Wow.... you do all realize the Rand Paul came out today, explaining his poor answer on a blindsided question?
That he came out in support of the very laws, you are condemning him for supposedly wanting to overthrow?
You are so busy trying to paint anyone with the name Paul as a whackjob, that you are jumping the shark.
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 20, 2010 01:25 PM (OlHjR)
While the cited amendments certainly gave Congress the power to extirpate slavery and enforce the rights of citizens, I don't see how that includes the right to determine who I may or may not allow to enter my private property, or do business with thereon. Is that distinction too sharp for all you constitutional scholars? If I won't sell the guy a sandwich, you think that's slavery?
The CRA would have been perfectly constitutional if it merely dealt with the actions of state and local governments. But it went much further. It impaired the property rights of citizens (which section one explicitly protects) to such an extent that the Congress now feels itself at liberty to force people to buy a particular brand of health insurance.
Posted by: JinEugene at May 20, 2010 01:26 PM (A4nXu)
56 So are we approaching the War Between The States Part II?
I hope not because,
In today's news:
North Korea sinks South Korea ship
Pro-Communist protestors have occupied the Greek parliament and 100,000 strikers are outside the building
a broad ban on short selling Euro-zone?
Jobless claims “unexpectedly” higher
civil war? in Thailand, once seen as the most stable democracy in SE Asia
Gulf Oil leak potentially much worse than previously reported (could be as high as 4 MM gallons/day)
capital sprinting out of German banks
Questions about the fundamental viability of the European Union
California rated 8th most likely “sovereign default,” ahead of Iraq and just a few spots behind Greece
I might have stolen parts of that... lots going on
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at May 20, 2010 01:26 PM (XIU4c)
Amen to that, brother. If I could pick only one court decision (and its descendants) to reverse it would be Wickard.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 01:26 PM (XIXhw)
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[...]
This amendment gives the federal government the right, the duty, to make sure that the state governments weren't treating people unequally, say on the basis of race. It does not give the federal government the right to hold me to the same standard. If I decide that I don't want to associate with persons of group X, whether X be Black people, Gay people, Estonian people, or whoever else my bigoted ass doesn't want to associate with, that's my right. It is also my right if I want to open a coffee shop, and only hire and/or serve certain kinds of people.
Now, if the state, through its health codes, is mandating that I maintain some kind of discriminatory practice against the members of certain groups, then the federal government has the obligation to put a stop to that violation of the constitution by that state government. However, if my discriminatory practices are entirely of my own invention, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the right to interfere with my misguided practices. They made it up, and vast majority of their statist abuses of power rest on the same rational: the interstate commerce clause:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
There is nothing in there that gives the federal government the right to say that I can't open a coffee shop that only serves people of French (shudder) ancestry.
Had your position been that it is, at this moment in time, a losing battle to have this fight, I would grudgingly agree with you. But, you said no, that the argument is wrong on the substance. So, if you want to give lessons, how about pointing to the section of the constitution that gives the federal government the right to criminalize this behavior by individuals?
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 20, 2010 01:26 PM (DsU01)
Only since 1942 and Wickard, buddy. And that's the root of so many of our problems today. The commerce clause cannot be used for regulating non "commerce" activities (literally, buying and selling under the original meaning of the Constitution), such as manufacturing, workplace safety, etc.
As I said, that was what I understood Pauls argument to be, at least that's the part I heard him say to Laura Ingram. He did not thing the feds had the right to force a business to admit a black man and that it was a states rights issue. Like I also said this is the one time I would agree with the commerce clause being used.
Posted by: robtr at May 20, 2010 01:29 PM (fwSHf)
It'll serve us damned right to lose this race in the fall, and maybe a chance at control of the Senate.
And then it'll serve us right to watch our dollar die and our cities vaporize because we were more concerned with waving our armchair-libertarian dicks around over this kind of retarded Freeper shit, rather than focus on the actual issues of our time.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 20, 2010 01:29 PM (Sl6p1)
What he and the Libertines actually believe in, if you read them closely, are the Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution. They aren't bright enough to know the difference, so they go about squealing about this or that being "unconstitutional!" and generally making fools and nuisances of themselves.
But at least Rand isn't part of the "establishment," even if opposed the Iraq War and wants us out of Afghanistan, Europe, and pretty much everywhere else.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 20, 2010 01:29 PM (3hg5M)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 01:29 PM (PUC8V)
That's where we are now. Geez.
Posted by: Phelps at May 20, 2010 05:23 PM (o/6if)
trolled or rolled?
Posted by: conscious, but quite incoherent at May 20, 2010 01:29 PM (YVZlY)
no room for different opinions in this party. you follow the conservative narrative that has been laid out for you, and everything is fine. step outside the lines, show any type of independent thought, may I dare say it "out of the mainstream thought"! EEEEEEEEK! the horror, BURN HIM NOW!!!
Posted by: exceller at May 20, 2010 01:30 PM (jx2Td)
You are thinking of the VOTING Rights Act, I think, which does apply (in some sections, such as preclearance) only to the old states of the Confederacy.
He's right. VRA applies in all states and some certain sections, particularly Section 5 preclearance applies only to certain covered jurisdictions which had Jim Crow laws in the 1960s--and that's not just limited to jurisdictions in the former Confederacy.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 20, 2010 01:31 PM (XBUdh)
Posted by: Firecracker at May 20, 2010 01:32 PM (zfRju)
Posted by: Ru Paul - Rand's Lil' Sister at May 20, 2010 01:33 PM (m1Chw)
Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 01:33 PM (PUC8V)
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 01:36 PM (66DVY)
Hey now. There's no call for that kind of language.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 01:37 PM (XIXhw)
Meh, I can't go there. Every generation is bound by laws passed before they arrived and without their aid in the crafting. Losing a war comes with costs.
And I say this as a Southerner by birth and inclination, and as a Texan by the grace of God.
Posted by: damian at May 20, 2010 01:38 PM (4WbTI)
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 01:38 PM (66DVY)
>> because there is no widespread prejudice against the French.
Well there oughta be.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 20, 2010 01:39 PM (WvXvd)
He ran around teaching his "expertise", like that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, so the gubmint can't collect income taxes. How'd that argument work out for Wesley Snipes, by the way?
Fuck Libertarians. They'll name five policy positions you agree with and segue seamlessly into how ZIP codes are secret Federal Territory designators and that flouride is being put in the water supply to make people... who knows? That's why it's a conspiracy!
Oh, and remind me again how many Libertarians we have in Congress. I'll wait over here while the Cray supercomputer crunches that massive number.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 20, 2010 01:39 PM (CpbMn)
Well there oughta be.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 20, 2010 05:39 PM (WvXvd)
Really?
Posted by: Freedom Fries at May 20, 2010 01:40 PM (fwSHf)
No, I think you mean the War of Northern Aggression. You damn YANKEE.
Posted by: Southern Revanchists, Inc. at May 20, 2010 05:16 PM (RD7QR)
I'm no damned Yankee and you better keep a civil War Between the States tongue in your mouth when you're speakin' to me!Posted by: Yosemite Sam at May 20, 2010 01:40 PM (7+pP9)
This is all the fruits of the Constitutional teachings of the Lew Rockwell cult.
Heard the one about how Lincoln is more evil than Hitler?
Posted by: jp at May 20, 2010 01:43 PM (DFDtC)
The problem with Libertarianism as a political movement is outside a small core of anarchists there isn't much agreement on what the proper role of the government should be. So any alliance shatters under the least bit of pressure. I used to identify myself as a Libertarian until I decided it's just not a very descriptive label.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 01:44 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: Diogenes at May 20, 2010 01:45 PM (eVJ7T)
ace, you are WAY overreading the term "slavery" with respect to the 13th amendment's import. Abolishing slavery is not equivalent to abolishing the incidents of slavery.
I agree that the 14th requires equal protection and privileges and immunities, sharply limiting the laws that supported Jim Crow. the 14th can thus get into the incidents of slavery, but not the 13th. And going to dsicrimination in public accommodations, it was (what, the rib place in Georgia?), that was used for that case? And they tied it's commerce clause bona fides to the highway? THat's weak sauce and deserves to be overturned. Just like Justice Thomas' consistent demand to revisit the Slaughterhouse cases, some errors need correcting.
You're reading the constitution in teh way that you criticize the leftists for doing when they see penumbras and emanations.
Posted by: s'moron at May 20, 2010 01:45 PM (UaxA0)
The failure to use the Civil Flag of the United States precludes this court from exercising jurisdiction over me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at the FRINGE!!!!!!!!
Posted by: child pornographer grasping at libertarian straws at May 20, 2010 01:48 PM (UaxA0)
No, I think you mean the War of Northern Aggression. You damn YANKEE.
Posted by: Southern Revanchists, Inc. at May 20, 2010 05:16 PM (RD7QR)
I'm no damned Yankee and you better keep a civil War Between the States tongue in your mouth when you're speakin' to me!Posted by: Yosemite Sam at May 20, 2010 01:48 PM (7+pP9)
I knew we'd here this eventually -- Southern whites didn't really agree to this, but only acquiesced due to force, hence it's not fair.
When did Southern blacks agree to Jim Crow, dude?
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 05:38 PM (66DVY)
It was the tyranny of the majority, much like it is now, except with different victims. We hope that the rule of law is a buffer from the tyranny of the majority, but when the law doesn't even obey the law, who can cry foul?
Posted by: Diogenes at May 20, 2010 01:49 PM (eVJ7T)
Posted by: flurmf at May 20, 2010 01:50 PM (j6yh6)
Posted by: Stately Victor at May 20, 2010 01:50 PM (zfRju)
Posted by: Yosemite Sam at May 20, 2010 01:50 PM (7+pP9)
No. Jim Crow was propagated by the state governments. The federal government was wrong that they let it go on so long, and they were right to end it when they did. But, they went beyond that. Had they said to the states, you may no longer discriminate in voting, or in other matters when a citizen interacts with the state, that would have been legit. Had they said to states, you may no longer enforce separate seating in restaurants as a matter of law, that would have been legit. But, they went beyond that.
If Stumpy wants to have a restaurant that enforces separate seating, no problem, as long as Wilbur is allowed to open a restaurant next door that allows mixed seating. But no, the federal government doesn't seem to be capable of just sticking to things that are within their legitimate powers. They went further and started regulating the freedom to associate of individual citizens. Roll that back, and the legal fictions that permit it, and we will be well on the way to regaining control over our government.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 20, 2010 01:52 PM (DsU01)
Posted by: Self-hating Teabagger at May 20, 2010 01:55 PM (0K3p3)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 20, 2010 01:55 PM (Sl6p1)
The Thirteenth Amendment forbids INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE or SLAVERY, except where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime.
should be
The Thirteenth Amendment forbids INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE and SLAVERY, except where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime.
Posted by: OCBill at May 20, 2010 01:57 PM (Mj+FA)
Pro-Communist protestors have occupied the Greek parliament and 100,000 strikers are outside the building
a broad ban on short selling Euro-zone?
Jobless claims “unexpectedly” higher
civil war? in Thailand, once seen as the most stable democracy in SE Asia
Gulf Oil leak potentially much worse than previously reported (could be as high as 4 MM gallons/day)
capital sprinting out of German banks
Questions about the fundamental viability of the European Union
California rated 8th most likely “sovereign default,” ahead of Iraq and just a few spots behind Greece
You missed a couple. The DJIA is down 375 points and, most concerning of all, Megan Fox has been dropped from Transformers 3.
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 20, 2010 01:58 PM (xxgag)
Posted by: Jerk the Greek at May 20, 2010 01:58 PM (VMQj4)
And all of it flows from the presumption the federal government has the right to decide not just whether people associate with each other, but the parameters of that association.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 01:59 PM (XIXhw)
Heh heh. Amazingly, it turns out you may be short a job if you keep badmouthing your boss.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 02:00 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: JinEugene at May 20, 2010 02:05 PM (A4nXu)
Posted by: the peanut gallery at May 20, 2010 02:09 PM (NurK6)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 20, 2010 02:10 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Les Paul - Rand's Brother at May 20, 2010 02:13 PM (m1Chw)
Dammit Jim, I'm a DOCTOR, not a lawyer.
I'm just looking forward to the day when I look at this presidency and say, "It's dead, Jim." I can tell these things from the dead eyes.
Posted by: Dr. Paul, Star Trek nerd at May 20, 2010 02:18 PM (gbCNS)
Posted by: tommylotto at May 20, 2010 02:22 PM (oHIHU)
Heard this from a Libertarian. No shit.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 20, 2010 02:22 PM (vmba3)
Posted by: Guvnah at May 20, 2010 02:26 PM (Rg8DN)
-------------------
So was his father. Sit right down with some klansmen in a Vietnamese place and eat some pork fried rice.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 02:28 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Mrs Paul - Rand's Sis in the Fishstick Biz at May 20, 2010 02:29 PM (m1Chw)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 20, 2010 02:33 PM (6Rh3U)
Posted by: Pope Paul - [No Relation] at May 20, 2010 02:35 PM (m1Chw)
OH, I KNOW! You're Ethan Winner! Duh... Louisville's liberal.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 02:36 PM (mHQ7T)
BS he just runs as a Republican, but he might as well be from Mars.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 02:37 PM (mHQ7T)
My take isn't that modern CR legislation wasn't Constitutional -- it's that it wasn't the best way to handle the problem. In fact, it was a problem that was fixing itself based on social pressure. The dam was about to burst, with blacks fed up with not being allowed to do this and that with whites who were their friends, and many whites being humiliated that they had to treat their black friends a certain way because of their color. How different of a world would we live in today if that social change had lead? If brave people finally had enough and instead of getting the government to do something about it, got together and changed the minds of society for themselves? It probably would have taken a little longer, but I think the end notion would have been better.
Interesting fact I learned in "The Economics of Race and Gender" class at (insert Ivy Uni here). Shocking really, considering the source and the name of the class. Black and white wages were on a collision course coming out of the fifties. They were approaching parity. Guess where they start to diverge again? 1964. They've never recovered.
Criticizing modern CR legislation might be cyanide-in-a-monkey's-ass-toxic for political campaigners, but it doesn't mean it was even close to right.
Posted by: mr.frakypants at May 20, 2010 02:39 PM (pffBj)
That doesn't mean they and their paint-huffing True Believers get to come in and tell everyone how they don't understand the constitution. I'm not saying toss him out of my party. I'm saying, "Who brought that fucking guy?"
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 20, 2010 02:54 PM (CpbMn)
there is no power to regulate private activity as a "badge of slavery"
ace hasn't read the caselaw, so his point is inherently inconsistent with the legal justification for the CRA (commerce clause)
The commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 80 years has been atrocious, and there's no point in arguing the constitutional niceties when ace isn;t even talking about the actual constitution.
Posted by: s'moron at May 20, 2010 03:01 PM (UaxA0)
Stop. Just stop. Twisting what Paul actually said accomplishes nothing. If you don't like his nuance, fine - but don't kid yourself into thinking Maddow and her ilk will stop hating you & calling you racist.
Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.
Posted by: Molyuk at May 20, 2010 03:02 PM (TCvDC)
Posted by: Thesher at May 20, 2010 03:12 PM (qQwwI)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:17 PM (mHQ7T)
I think one person's right begins where another's ends and that everyone has a right to eat wherever they choose regardless of their skin color. It seems to me to be a First Amendment violation against the right to peaceful assembly.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:20 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 20, 2010 03:22 PM (Sl6p1)
I have to disagree with your caste idea, my friend
It wasn't just blacks discriminated against in the caste-like status of post-Civil War America. All nonwhites were to some extent second-class citizens, as were women. That really was a totally separate issue from slavery.
Remember, science was still primitive then, and racialist (and sexist) theories were still widely accepted even as late as the 1940s and 1950s. As late as 1970, homosexuality was officially considered a mental disorder.
Did the Amendments seek to create a colorblind, casteless society? I would argue: hell no they didn't, because society would have rejected the idea.
A caste system is ugly, but it isn't slavery, and it isn't the government's job to do this kind of social engineering. It just leads to the problems we have today.
As Reagan said, a government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take everything away.
This kind of problem is best addressed through free markets. If a company won't hire/serve employable minorities, they lose to those who will, and by the efforts of the decent people who despise such behavior to boycott them.
I think in large part attitudes like this stem from a mistaken notion that blacks must be suffering economically because of irrational discrimination. But in a country where Asians and Arabs have higher incomes than the majority whites, that argument is hard to support; it's much more likely that individual blacks have just made choices that hurt the economic position of they and their families (single motherhood, violent crime, a lack of focus on education, etc). I bet you would be hard-pressed to find any person in America today, of any race, whose travails or successes were more attributable to their race rather than their decisions.
Posted by: TallDave at May 20, 2010 03:30 PM (+3aaV)
Beyond ridiculous. Can I eat in your dining room?
Geez, with "rights" like these, who needs rights?
Posted by: the peanut gallery at May 20, 2010 03:32 PM (NurK6)
Now I know why you remind me of the guy who punched the hippie in Dazed and Confused. The realization came as Diet Coke sprayed across my laptop.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:32 PM (mHQ7T)
As someone who takes public transit every day, there's a difference between private and public space, though, I wish the guy who gives himself a pedicure on the train realized this. The front of the bus is not your dining room.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:36 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Thesher at May 20, 2010 03:36 PM (qQwwI)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:39 PM (mHQ7T)
I'm not in the business of running a douche hostel. Call your mom instead.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:40 PM (mHQ7T)
Either the South seceded legally or it didn't.
If they seceded legally, then the US had no legal power to annex them by force.
If they did not secede legally, as was the Union's official position, then the US did not have the power to restrict, alter or interfere with the Southern States' elections of Congressmen and Senators.
Nor did it have the power to create West Virginia out of thin air.
And, since we're being all sensitive about the proper scope of Constitutional powers, isn't it funny how the US government, such as it is, passed an Amendment to authorize the ban on liquor, then repealed it, and then turned around and started banning every other damned drug in the known universe. No amendment required for that!
The U.S.Constitution has been a dead letter since 1861. Arguing about it now is just mental masturbation.
Posted by: Phinn at May 20, 2010 03:43 PM (GiUTT)
And if you have a problem with abortion, you shouldn't work in a hospital. Frankly, if you don't conform to mainstream opinion on everything you shouldn't work anywhere. We've got RIGHTS to protect here, people!
Posted by: the peanut gallery at May 20, 2010 03:43 PM (NurK6)
That's actually how our government works. Like, if you have a problem with war, you're a conscientious objector. But you have no right to call your diner "private property" just so you can call people the N word.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:52 PM (mHQ7T)
First, Ace is right on the history. There are several books on this topic, including Nicholas Lemann's "Redemption" and Charles Lane's "The Day Freedom Died" (yes, the "Shattered Glass" guy, who flushed Glass's shit out of TNR). These amendments were "power grabs" if you will, an attempt by Northern Republicans to destroy peonage and racial caste. The courts then ruled the power grabs illegal, which was in fact illegal of the courts.
Actually the amendments just clarify the Constitution itself, section 10: "No state shall ... grant any title of nobility". Nobility means privilege; it means law-abiding citizen group X has rights that fellow law-abiding citizen group Y does not.
The only real argument against Ace's reading of the history is that the Constitution is wrong and that we should bring back titles of nobility. I'd make that argument, because I'm a feudal monarchist. :^) But then, I'm not a nominee for Congress, nor am I likely to be.
Since Rand Paul is a nominee for Congress, he should either make his case for an amendment reinstating a master-serf model upon these shores; or else he should say he agrees with the Constitution as written and lawfully interpreted. Or he could, you know, STFD, STFU and let someone else be the nominee.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 20, 2010 03:53 PM (Qr1Hy)
West Virginia created itself. They were sick of having the shit taxed out of them by stuck-up Virginian politicians who rarely made the trip across the mountains to check on the rednecks. They had little farmable land, and they actually related to the slaves more than the landowners. So, they said, "Let Virginia kill themselves. We want to stay in the Union." It's not that they became a new state; they chose to remain a state after Virginia seceded.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 03:56 PM (mHQ7T)
No, if a group secedes illegally and shells Union property, then the Union is authorised to declare hostilities. Sherman did the South a favour by not hanging every white man in the South, with smallpox-infected rope.
"War is hell", as was I believe mentioned in that war's context. If you don't like war and its results, then don't start one.
The amendments were legal.
/and idiocy like this is why, despite often agreeing with Southern white conservatives, I don't like to associate myself with them. Confederate nostalgists are prideful as Arabs and almost as useless.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 20, 2010 03:59 PM (Qr1Hy)
Posted by: Mike Foster at May 20, 2010 04:03 PM (yhAPJ)
Or I could be going at this all wrong. PARTY AT DE PLANE'S PLACE! FREE BEER!
Posted by: Zimriel at May 20, 2010 04:03 PM (Qr1Hy)
Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 04:11 PM (66DVY)
Posted by: every succeeding generation at May 20, 2010 04:15 PM (4WbTI)
Posted by: mjhlaw at May 20, 2010 04:16 PM (+CytJ)
I'm all for striking down any of the government laws stopping them from voting or making them go to separate schools but even though on balance the CRAs may have been more positive than negative doesn't mean we can't rightfully argue that in some respects they went too far and gave government too much authority.
Posted by: southernmark at May 20, 2010 04:41 PM (EsUlK)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ..., are citizens of the United States ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
To get a perspective on what this actually means (vs. what it sounds like to people in 21st Century America), just think about how this applied to women. They are clearly included in the explicit definition of "citizen", yet "priviledges or immunities" and "protection" did not even imply that they had the right to vote! "Equal protection", et al, apparently did NOT mean "equal rights".
In fact, the next section specifically spells out a penalty for denying a segment of the population (black males) the right to vote - so it specifically recognized that all people would not be given a constitutional guarantee of equal rights under this amendment (sufferage for this segment was granted in the next amendment - the ladies had quite a while yet to wait.)
I don't buy the whole "badges of servitude" thing. Segregation is just racist, without any association with slavery necessarily being implied. Inequality may be un-American, and just plain immoral and a bad idea, but - just considering the case of women - it doesn't sound like equal treatment was even expected in these amendments, much less required. If the authors thought it was, then why did they feel that the CRA 1875 was even needed?
Personally, as far as CRA1875 is concerned, I recognize both the libertarian difficulties, and its practical necessity. If I were to try to defend its constitutionality, though, I might just simply go with the "just and proper" clause. That being said, it added what I think was a new requirement that you MUST offer something for sale to A (if you similarly offered it to B), and so it reminds me of ObamaCare, where there is a new requirement that you MUST purchase something. So it seems like there is (was?) a legitimate debate to be had there.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 20, 2010 04:56 PM (odEHq)
Okay, then I want to eat in your dining room. Now.
Chop, chop.
People can serve whoever they want, whenever they want. They also can see, speak, and fuck anyone they want, whenever they want. For whatever reasons they want.
Posted by: MlR at May 20, 2010 04:59 PM (v18zq)
You're making this point to suggest that it's (a) an extension of my argument, yet (b) it's too ridiculous to be valid, but I happen to agree with it. It's Spooner's whole "Constitution of No Authority No. 6" argument. And it applies to everyone, not just slaves.
But that's beside the point. Regardless of the legitimacy of the Constitution's authority over you and me (or over anyone else who didn't sign it, or over anyone at all for that matter, since no one signed it in his private capacity anyway), acts of government are necessarily completely illegitimate if the organization it purports to create and empower doesn't even follow it.
The validity of amending the Constitution is itself a Constitutional issue. The composition of Congress is also a Constitutional issue. You cannot legitimately say that these 3 Amendments are valid Constitutionally, and also legitimately say that the process by which the composition of the Congress that voted for them can be unconstitutional.
I understand the point you are making but you are getting very selective about people only being bound by laws they vote for. Southern whites, you are saying, had the right of pure self-determination and should not be bound by Yankee amendments; but you ignore this principle when it comes to blacks.
It's you who is being selective. Either the whole Constitution is binding, or none of it is. (It may be wholly non-binding, per Spooner, but at the very least, it can only be legitimate if power exercised under its authority operates according to its own terms.)
You are claiming that IF we say the south seceded illegally, then... the legal government, once restored, has no power to make laws about rebels and insurrectionists holding offices in the government they just months ago made war on?
I'm afraid you'll have to explain yourself here. I don't get it.
Either the Southern states' legislative acts of secession were legal and effective, or they were a nullity.
The Union's position was that they were a nullity, and the states do not have the Constitutional power to secede.
That's wrong, but fine. Let's go with that.
There is still no Constitutional authority for the proposition that the US government can force States to re-write their state constitutions.
There is no Constitutional authority for inventing various requirements before states can be "readmitted," since the Union's original position is that they never left in the first place.
Under the Union's legal theory, it had the authority to quell armed rebellion. Fine. I don't think they did, but let's run with that.
If that were true, then there is still no Constitutional authority for the Union to make all kinds of demands, limitations, and other restrictions on the legality of a State's official acts, its legislature, its elections, its state constitution, etc. The power to quell armed rebellion begins and ends with the power to, well, quell armed rebellion.
Voting in a state legislature isn't an armed rebellion. Therefore, the Union government has no Constitutional authority to control the internal legal processes of states, other than to require them to have a Republican form of government, which the Union actively prevented for many years.
Posted by: Phinn at May 20, 2010 05:05 PM (GiUTT)
Posted by: Rodney at May 20, 2010 05:10 PM (XRIh6)
Posted by: Guvnah at May 20, 2010 05:32 PM (E8BCQ)
Do you have a business license for your home? Use your "private property" argument for a streetcar, a drinking fountain, a public school... the country was sick of hearing about racist Dixiecrats fighting with civil rights activists who used legal suits, mass sit-ins, and boycotts to hasten desegregation. You could either whine pathetically about your property rights, like slave owners undoubtedly did back in the day, and go out of business as more people were sickened by your behavior, or you could put on your human disguise and act like a normal fucking person. Maybe you would have preferred to drag the whole stupid fight out just so you could discriminate against minorities and console yourself with your precious rights until you went bankrupt. By the way, showing up at someone's home uninvited is not "right to assembly" but mob tactics. It's breaking the law and trespassing, which is why the KKK fuckers wore sheets.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 06:26 PM (mHQ7T)
Chop, chop.
See my above reply to the other racist fuckwit.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 06:28 PM (mHQ7T)
Life- everyone is entitled to live once they are created.Liberty- everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.Estate- everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.Your property rights do not trump another human being's natural rights, which are the bedrock of our Constitution. Banning someone from your business on the basis of their skin color is inciting hatred which infringes on their right to not be hung or shot.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 20, 2010 06:46 PM (mHQ7T)
"Inciting hatred".
So you'd ban free speech too.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 20, 2010 07:13 PM (YpuBZ)
Congratulations to all are in order.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 20, 2010 07:15 PM (YpuBZ)
Posted by: Thesher at May 20, 2010 07:43 PM (wUg7X)
I'm beginning to see the point of this post! No one is ever, again, going to mistake this for a libertarian blog! Used to happen all the time, I guess.
That was the point, wasn't it? Because other than that, it was pretty much pointless.
Every year or so I have to point out that Ace is LBJ's biggest fan. He's one of those Great Society conservatives. He'd campaign for a Kennedy rather than support a libertarian.
Posted by: comatus at May 20, 2010 07:47 PM (/VEEI)
Give 'em hell, Ace! Confess, as a Goldwater Republican at the tender age of 18 in 1965, I didn't fully appreciate that the CRA was implementing the plain language of the 13th-15th Amendments. I now do.
A real eye-opener was reading Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" case several years ago, along with John Harlan's famous dissent. Today's liberal activist judges must secretly use Plessy as a great example of how a majority writes an opinion that gets them to the answer they want, no matter what the Constitution plainly says. To his great credit, good-ole-boy Harlan would have no part of that abomination.
Posted by: Elmer_Stoup at May 20, 2010 07:56 PM (+C2ns)
Posted by: Guvnah at May 20, 2010 08:33 PM (E8BCQ)
Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at May 21, 2010 04:52 AM (+COdN)
The flaw in your argument is that you are equating slavery with racial descrimination. They are not the same thing.
The Constitution never would have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, which as far as I'm concerned should override every other word of the Constitution (including amendments that don't specifically repeal it) prohibits Congress from enacting laws that abridge the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peacebly assemble. The courts have equated those freedoms as implying the freedom of association.
If I own a restaurant and don't want any person with a nose ring to work there because I find nose rings disgusting, I should have that right. That person is perfectly free to take his nose ring elsewhere. If he/she insists on sitting in my restaurant because he wants to prove to the world that I'm a nose-ring bigot, I should have the right to have them arrested for trespassing. Nose-ring is free to protest outside my restaurant and persuade as many of my potential customers as possible to not eat in my restaurant. He has every right to try and put me out of business.
I don't have the right to take Nose-ring and ship him off in chains to be my slave, and he doesn't have the right to throw a brick through my window.
Some people will say that Nose-ring is a bad example because he can just remove his nose ring to fit in and blacks can't. True. But the Civil Rights Act now includes many classes of people who are just like Mr. Nose-ring.
That's what happens when you start abridging freedoms. Where does it end? The government is different than a private citizen, and private property is the basis for individual rights.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at May 21, 2010 06:52 AM (YjQWV)
Newsflash, racist. Burning a cross in someone's front yard is not free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 10:41 AM (mHQ7T)
But finding a person "disgusting" because of the color of their skin makes you a racist POS, and in the Jim Crowe south that meant you were standing strong with institutionalized, un-Constitutional discrimination that deprived blacks of their human rights. Our Founders set up our government so that human rights would trump legal rights with the consent of the governed and court opinion.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 10:46 AM (mHQ7T)
Yes, you do. You are despicable apologists for one of the most abhorrent crimes against humanity this country has ever seen. Fucking spare me your weaseling on how you think the free market could have ended de facto slavery. That's all Jim Crow was -- the southern states way of keeping slavery alive after the Civil War ended. Your excuse is, "It's my property, and I can advocate for lynchings if I want to." Really? You're a disgrace to the GOP.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 10:56 AM (mHQ7T)
Think about what you wrote.
Then go away and think about the 50's lunch counter sit ins.
But not too long.
You'll get an irony headache.
THAT RIGHT THERE TAKES THE FUCKING CAKE.
Lynch = Lunch
You make me sick. Go back to Stormfront.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 10:59 AM (mHQ7T)
If Ace is a fascist, too, then I'm in good company. At least we like blacks and the Constitution.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 11:03 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: spongeworthy at May 21, 2010 12:59 PM (rplL3)
Did the Reconstruction Amendments authorize the federal government to tell people how to use their private property? I don't think so. What failed to happen, after Grant would not send further US soldiers into Louisiana in 1875, was holding the states to their duty to protect all their citizens from violence. That would not happen again until Eisenhower.
What finally ended Jim Crow was a change in the national will thanks to the civil rights movement and finally holding states to their duty in the late 1950s and 1960s. Going beyond that opened the door to racial quotas, forced busing, and all the rest of the nonsense.
Posted by: Ashley at May 21, 2010 08:49 PM (JSamf)
Posted by: brooklyn at May 21, 2010 10:17 PM (Q12g3)
CIVIL RIGHTS?
Constitutionally, states had the right to leave the union. It was a gross misfortune nationally, first that African slaves were ever imported, second that slavery's abolishment was not settled diplomatically, third that the economic forces specifically arranged from Northern mercantile banking interests made secession occur, and finally that in 2010 American citizens are not treated equally under the law, and in fact do not enjoy federal border protection from illegal alien invasion. Rather we are abused by our federal government that taxes us to fund bail-outs, federal purchases of entire industries, ObamaCare without proper Congressional protocol legislative procedure, and the moto perpetuo wars to "win the hearts and minds of the enemy" jihadists, etc. yet without following legal protocol in military tribunals, rather following PC Rules of Engagement and prosecuting warriors who survive using self defense in hand to hand combat.
The Civil War was a devastating moment in our history, back when we were fighting tooth and nail at Gettysburg, I didn't see any hope of our great nation surviving.--Posted by: Richard Blumenthal
We must accept the fact that this war is lost.--Posted by: Harry 'Copperhead' Reid
Posted by: Jeff B.
Did the War of Northern Economic Aggression ever end, really? Look at the bigotry held against Southern whites in contemporary progressive PC society comprising the political establishment in business and government. Obama's DHS targets the so-called "redneck" to suffer the federal abuses of power, but ignores the New Black Panther and the Islamic terrorists in America.
>>>. "The Southern states were still occupied and did not have free and full representation in Congress at the time of their passage. Binding people to laws they had no voice in crafting or chance to vote on was, and is, a pretty legitimate point of contention in American history."
Um, yeah... so they are freed of obligation to honor armistice and treaty commitments? I knew we'd here this eventually -- Southern whites didn't really agree to this, but only acquiesced due to force, hence it's not fair. When did Southern blacks agree to Jim Crow, dude? --Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 05:38 PM
Just asking. How many wrongs make a right, Ace? If you're not one of the "beautiful people" you will still be denied service in high fashion districts, regardless of Constitutional Rights. It isn't as if any of the Civil Rights Acts have protected every citizen's EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW today given "special" interests.
Making a mountain out of a Paul molehill may be entertaining, and even educational. Anything blown out of proportion or taken out of context? Some are too ready to force Paul to walk the plank that is not his platform. Will he be fiscally conservative? Will he protect my conservative Constitutional Rights?
Posted by: maverick muse at May 22, 2010 04:39 AM (H+LJc)
#185
I'm sorry, but being served in a restaurant of your choosing, or being able to play golf wherever you want, or buying a house you want is not a human right.
There is no such thing as "un-Constitutional discrimination ". Or, at least, there shouldn't be. I have every right to be a racist sexist homophobic bigot and as long as my bigotry is confined to my own property I can think and say whatever I want. Nobody has to agree with me or accept me. They are free to shun me.
But they have no right to arrest me, or whine to a court because their feeling were hurt.
Slavery has nothing to do with race. The fact that in this country blacks were its victims is a detail. Slavery was not invented to deal with blacks in America and it was not wiped off the face of the Earth in 1865. There are still many parts of the world where slavery is acceptable.
Collective guilt over American slavery always seems to overlook the fact that slavery here predated the founding by hundreds of years and the United States managed to abolish slavery less than 100 years after the country was founded. That's an astounding feat, unprecedented in human history, we never get any credit for.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at May 22, 2010 05:28 AM (YjQWV)
Posted by: Anon at May 22, 2010 09:51 PM (GpHQ+)
ßæßÊÃá × ÃáÃá ãæÇÞÚ × ãäÊÃÃÇÊ ßæßÊÃá × ÔÇÊ ÕæÊà × ÔÇÊ ßæßÊÃá × Ãä ÊÇÃã
Posted by: soo at May 22, 2010 10:49 PM (WFYoY)
Slavery still exists, as does discrimination. The Civil Rights Act didn't eliminate it, it just chose a new master and victim.
Posted by: Lurker at May 24, 2010 12:43 PM (Ty/a4)
We are professional cheap Juicy Couture Jewelry factory, you can get high-quality and best price here. I'm sure you'll be satisfied with our good survice. You can learn more to http://www.juicycouturejewelry.org !
Posted by: jordan at September 13, 2010 06:03 PM (D9g2q)
Posted by: Find clock components at September 17, 2010 04:56 AM (lf9KZ)
Posted by: eyelash conditioner at September 18, 2010 04:31 AM (Q2pBm)
Posted by: US clocks repair at September 19, 2010 05:46 AM (Ax1Bi)
Posted by: treatment of genital warts at September 25, 2010 04:27 AM (MMAsY)
Posted by: funriture covers at September 29, 2010 07:14 AM (P0ulY)
Posted by: cheap mbt sneakers at October 12, 2010 06:31 PM (/WeGl)
Posted by: Pharmd757 at October 14, 2010 07:19 PM (zLT4k)
Posted by: Pharmf316 at October 15, 2010 01:30 PM (k1xm6)
Posted by: iPad to iTunes Transfer at November 20, 2010 07:43 PM (k84do)
very informative post, thanks for sharing it with us
Posted by: engraved gifts at January 26, 2011 01:54 AM (AGBu4)
In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own Blog
Posted by: custom spirit tattoos at January 31, 2011 10:16 AM (eTCqu)
I certainly enjoyed the way you explore your experience and knowledge of the subject! Keep up on it. Thanks for sharing the info
Posted by: Acai Max Cleanse at February 03, 2011 12:06 AM (dU2jr)
Posted by: Quibids at February 03, 2011 08:24 PM (XkPB3)
Kisses and hugs, darlingi will be much missed.
Scarves <a href="http://www.scarvesshop.co.uk/">Scarves</a>
Posted by: scarves at February 22, 2011 12:44 AM (90koD)
Posted by: orjin yüzbakým seti at March 05, 2011 11:04 AM (q3Ici)
Posted by: chi flat iron at May 23, 2011 01:16 AM (VDR/A)
Posted by: fanfan at June 17, 2011 09:19 PM (mysq1)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2203 seconds, 341 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: garrett at May 20, 2010 12:43 PM (/emsw)