Fox: Dems have unearthed video of Rand Paul condemning the 1965 Civil Rights Act

Fox Special Alert | 5/20/10

[Tribune7]

I always thought that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the white man's employment act.

Why do white guys make the best hirees? Because you can fire them.

Thinking people understand that "protected categories" have an inherent and unfair disadvantage.

Every employer discriminates subjectively, btw. If you don't believe that ask why you are strongly advised to wear a suit and tie to most interviews.

Something else, I just noticed that what Paul was condemning as per the headline was the 1965 Civil Rights Act -- which would be the Voting Rights Act which basically required that the old Jim Crow states get Justice Department approval before making any changes in voting procedures. It was never meant to be permanent. In fact it was designed to come up for periodic renewal. In fact, Dubya signed a 25-year extension to in 2006 -- thanks George.

The time for it has obviously passed.

[Eagle Eye]

Isn’t this the same bill that Algore Sr. sponsored and championed as his life’s work?

Or not.

[chris_bdba]

Yes that is what they are talking about. It was pretty much a “do you still beat your wife”question and being the libretarian he is he said at the end of it that he really hated laws that infriged on private buinesses and the way they conduct buisness so the moonbats are going crazy.

[Hoodat]

Fox: Dems have unearthed video of Rand Paul condemning the 1965 Civil Rights Act

Was this the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[plain talk]

np. In this world we live in now I can’t even detect satire threads before responding to them. Its a cruel world out there.

[1951Boomer]

The gullible masses are incapable of theoretical discussions of the role of government that do not include intrusion into every nook and cranny of life. Instead, the only memorable sound bite will be that Paul “is against civil rights.” Many will latch onto that mantra like they’ve latched onto “Arizona wants to throw you in jail if you don’t have your ‘papers.’”

[FreeKeys]

Bill Clinton, our first black president worked for Sen Fulbright a big time segregationist.

Oh, that's right. Thanks for reminding me. And that DOES make Obama the SECOND black president, right?

[old republic]

The Article as posted doesn't say what law this is nor does it quote Rand Paul to give us a clue to the subject matter of the law that is supposedly being criticized. There is no law from 1965 officially named "The Civil Rights Act of 1965." So is this article about the law that actually has the name "The Civil Rights Act" from 1964 or is the civil rights law from 1965 called the "Voting Rights Act." Either way the name of the posted Article is flawed and ought to be clarified.

Either way, there are parts of both laws for which a compelling argument of unconstitutionality can be made, but because of Congress' desire for political gain, the constitution is sacrificed on the Altar of progressive big government in the name of good intentions. BTW, does anyone know why Arizona and Alaska are on the pre-clearance list of the Voting Rights Act? Those states aren't exactly famous for Jim Crow type laws, so how is it justified to put them on that list?

[ChurtleDawg]

that is correct. the main opposition was from the Dixiecrats.

[altair]

See, this is how I saw it when the Supreme Court ruled that the PGA Tour must allow golfer Casey Martin ride in a cart.

That was a horrible decision. If you want to play in the PGA, you walk, just like everyone else.

[Mr_Peter]

It is clear that he denounced government interference with a private business. He clearly meant private business can discriminate in that he follows up his comment with his view that discrimination wouldn't be very smart (you wouldn’t survive in business today).

I would maintain that it is a NATURAL right to not be discriminated against due to race, sex or anything else for that matter. Natural rights don't need to be explicit in the constitution. It was not very smart for him to say this. He might just as well say discrimination is perfectly fine, but I wouldn't do it. Not very smart.

Bang away. I'm also from the peoples republic of mass too pablianice. I also like Romney and Scott Brown, and that Palan is an embarrassment. Piss away rednecks :-0)

[10Ring]

The time for it has obviously past

Couldn't agree more...and there is even a SCOTUS case right now that could (but, probably won't) resolve this. It's at National Review.

To identify jurisdictions that would need to get their laws pre-approved, Congress designed a formula: The jurisdiction must have had a “test or device” (like a literacy test, or an examination to certify “good moral character”) that denied voting rights, and have had less than 50 percent registration or turnout in the 1964 election. As Section 5 was successively renewed, the latter requirement was updated to reflect registration and turnout rates in the 1968 and 1972 elections, but it has not been updated since.

Section 5 is in effect until 2031, with registration info from 1972...un-believeable.

[reaganairport]

That depends on what exactly is in the video. If it’s something that makes it look like he lied in his follow-up clarifications, he’s sunk. If it’s something more nuanced, he can still pull it out if he gets his act together.

[katiedidit1]

Yes, well technically speaking we have had two oreos in the whitehouse but Clinton’s afro is snow white.