Department of Justice argues Civil Rights Act does not protect homosexuals.

Double-spacing after periods is an archaic practice. It was originally used to distinguish between periods and commas, which could be hard to identify in typewritten documents. With improvements in printing technology and mass use of digital displays, double-spacing is no longer necessary and is no longer the standard.

 

Hail Hydra.

 

I bet you omit the Oxford comma too. Heathens.

 

If we ignore the governing documents when they are inconvenient to what we want to accomplish, then the Constitution is meaningless. If you can pass unconstitutional anti-discrimination laws, can't you also pass unconstitutional search and seizure laws, unconstitutional laws regarding representation in trials, unconstitutional laws regarding voting, etc.? Wouldn't it be better to pass laws that pass constitutional scrutiny, and where necessary, amend the Constitution as is provided for?

 

Perhaps arguing against unconstitutional search and seizure laws when they happen is appropriate? Throughout our history, we have had laws in place that have discriminated against those not in the majority, and those out of power looked to the courts when needed (especially when the government they elected ignored or were too slow to offer remedy).

 

You know. . . . IMO . . .. its embarrassing that this country has to have the Civil Rights Act
That we had to actually make a law to treat people fairly.
It's sh!tt!er that we now want to pick and choose who can get fair treatment covered by the Act

What *exactly* does saying Homosexuals are not protected by the act do that is so important?

We are ok with them being discriminated against?
We are ok with them being assaulted or murdered?

For those that argue they are not covered by the act
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO TO THEM OR DENY THEM OR NOT PROTECT THEM FROM THAT THE ACT IS PREVENTING YOU FROM DOING?

What does this Act do for homosexuals that you oppose?

Rocket River

 

I see that I was not totally clear in my limited agreement. I understand the unConstitutionality argument, and I think it has some merit. I also think it can be argued that the laws are Constitutional. Given the Justices on the SC and the logic they apply, I could see it go defensibly either way. But, understanding the realities of our political situation and knowing the sin of mankind, in my interest for the pursuit of justice I have a very definite interest in seeing it interpreted in a way that makes these sorts of corporate actions Constitutional. Until the Constitution is actually amended to make it explicitly the case, I'm all for doing the logical gymnastics that are required to interpret it as Constitutional. Whenever the Constitutionality is debatable (on this or search of voting or anything else), I'd rather back the side I believe maximizes justice.

 

Again you're conflating purely private functions with functions that occur in the public sphere. A wedding is a private function whereas running a business that does business in the public sphere is a different matter. I fully agree who I invite to my wedding is my own business and shouldn't be bound under Civil Rights laws and is protected under the First Amendment right to association. On the other hand though if I'm running a restaurant that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC for profit then I've agreed to abide by established standards. If we accept your argument then that wouldn't just call into question of civil rights laws regarding race and sexual orientation but also things like if I should make my business accessible to handicap. "Why should I have to serve cripples."

For me to operate a business publicly I'm entering into an agreement that does open me up to regulation. In return I can operate in the public sphere, incorporate and do many other things that will improve my chances to make a profit.

 

Not with any degree of intellectual honesty, it cannot.

The current makeup of the court should have no bearing on your evaluation on whether or not the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. To make that determination you need only the text of the law and the Constitution itself.

There should be no logical gymnastics required to determine if a law is constitutional. The Constitution is not an incredibly long document. The powers granted to Congress even less so. Find the clause that allows the Congress to pass a law requiring Joe Business Owner to serve black people at his restaurant.

I agree that the Americans With Disabilites Act is also unconstitutional.

Yes it does, under the current laws. Under the Constitution, Congress should only be passing laws to regulate your business if you deal in interstate commerce. Interstate - between more than one state, commerce - trade. If you run a restaurant and buy and sell locally, Congress should not have boo to say about it. If you buy across state lines, Congress can regulate those transactions, but not sales to local diners. Almost like words have definitions. Now, states can pass whatever laws they want (bound by the restrictions of State Constitutions), but that is not at issue here.

 

Curious... it appears you recognize that the 14th amendment does dictate that interstate commerce clause prevents discrimination via the Equal Protection Clause when any transaction happens between state lines, but not when businesses buy and sell locally. But that seems to ignore the public road that services the business that was built with taxpayer money, and also the on-going relationship between business and the government (eg. business pays taxes to the government, and in return the business enjoys certain protections and services such as fire and police protection, maintenance of roads, etc.

 

Fire, police, and roads are all local, not Federal.

 

Correct, but in the case of civil rights enforcement, the federal government can and usually step in (ie Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Title VI of Civil Rights Act). The same is true for civil rights enforcement in schools (which are all local, not Federal), which happened throughout history (Brown vs Board of Education, Eisenhower sending federal troops to Arkansas, Kennedy sending federal marshalls to protect freedom riders and federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect students in Alabama).

Lastly, federal laws prohibit discrimination in public accommodation, also covered under the Civil Rights Act. Public accommodations can be public buildings like libraries and courthouses, but they can also be privately owned business that offer good and services to the public. This can even be broader... any business that is open to the public. The only business that are excluded are churches and private clubs that require dues for membership. You are protected from discrimination via the same Civil Rights of 1964 and also the American Disabilities Act. There are some limitations (a public accommodation can refuse service or deny someone that presents a danger or offensive behavior to others).

 

Were you under the impression that I did not know this information? Why would I make posts talking about the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act being flagrantly unconstitutional if I was not aware that they existed? I mean the post you quoted even explicitly acknowledged that under current law opening a business opens the person up to these kinds of regulations.

 

I am sorry... I am just having a difficult time understanding how someone can look at one of the most important civil rights laws of all time and casually conclude that its unconstitutional. And not just unconstitutional... but flagrantly unconstitutional. Perhaps you can challenge the law in courts,since as Trump adds more and more,er, "originalists" on the USSC that I am sure you will have an easy time getting that law revoked. Of course, it that were to ever happen, I suspect a pretty quick amendment would replace it, but again, I am very curious to see someone go after such an overwhelmingly popular (and good) law. A Trump supporter, most likely.

Most believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional under the commerce clause. That covers interstate commerce... and intrastate commerce that have an impact on interstate commerce. Contracts (ie a rental agreement) between individuals may not in themselves be interstate, but when all contracts are looked at they can have an impact on interstate commerce. The courts have been lenient with congress to use the commerce clause (the one significant exception, using the commerce clause to regulate guns).

How this applies to civil rights law? If a state decides to discriminate, say, against African Americans, the courts have allowed congress to use the commerce clause to remedy using the argument that if enough people country-wide boycott that state it would impact interstate commerce. This was the case in Alabama in the 60's.

Even if you disagree with the commerce clause (doubtful your argument will fly with the courts though), other arguments could be made using the 13th and 14th Amendments which were passed to protects slaves and other African Americans from discrimination.

Meanwhile, we who don't have such deep constitutional insights will simply look at how it can be fairly applied to all American citizens.

 

Why would the importance of a law have anything to do with its constitutionality?

An amendment is the proper way to implement something not currently supported by the Constitution. When they wanted to allow women to vote, they amended the Constitution, Congress didn't just pass a law. When they wanted to outlaw alcohol, they didn't just pass a law, they amended the Constitution. When they wanted to outlaw slavery, Congress didn't just pass a law, they amended the Constitution.

Yes, this is how the courts have justified a huge amount of modern federal law. It stems from a case in the 1930s (Wickard v. Filburn) where interstate commerce was expanded to mean intrastate non-commerce. No reasonable reading of the interstate commerce clause would allow Congress to tell someone how much wheat they can grow on their own property. This was the point at which the court effectively decided that the Constitution doesn't really limit what laws can be passed. Now, basically anything goes. You can come up with some string of logic to eventually get to interstate commerce from anything.

There was one case where it looked like the court was actually going to go back to a rational reading of the interstate commerce clause, but then Scalia didn't want to let people grow pot, so they reversed course in Raich v. Gonzales and we are back to anything goes. Nothing it the 13th or 14th amendment would allow for Congress to regulate discrimination by private enterprises. The 14th Amendment requires state action, the 13th amendment abolishes slavery (hint: not letting a black person stay at your hotel doesn't make them your slave).

Any law can be fairly applied to all American citizens, if in no other way than simply not applying it at all.

 

Except as other posters have mentioned the Constitution provides for equal protection and is also empowered by the necessary and proper clause. In this case to guarantee equal protection for a disabled individual to have equal access to engage in lawful commerce Congress can provide such regulation.

 

The equal protection clause only applies to state action, which I covered in my last post. That is why businesses can, for example, deny access to those with guns. That is why Clutchfans is not bound by the first and fourteenth amendments to allow people to post whatever they want.

The necessary and proper clause allows for the passage of laws that are necessary and proper to implement the powers explicitly granted to congress. So, in order to build post roads, the government has to be able to acquire the land on which to build the roads, has to be able to contract the building of the roads through some sort of process, etc. Outlawing private discrimination is not necessary in order to carry out any of the powers explicitly granted to Congress.