Skip to comments.Glaring limits of the Civil Rights Act: We need to redistribute wealth (Yep, he went there)
Posted on 04/15/2014 9:30:32 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Even if racism were wiped out tomorrow, we'd still need to address pervasive racial wealth inequality. Here's why.
Although the Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation which just reached its 50th anniversary, made great strides in desegregating the economy, economic discrimination is still widespread, and anti-discrimination legislation alone can never rectify the economic damage inflicted upon blacks by slavery and our Jim Crow apartheid regime. The Civil Rights Act was a mild reform, all things considered, but one conservatives fought with vigor and one many conservatives are still bitter about to this day.
When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, the primary purpose was to root out discrimination in public accommodations (like hotels and movie theaters) and in employment. The former purposeeliminating public accommodations discriminationhas received renewed attention from conservatives lately who find it to be an infringement on the rights of racist business owners to be racist. GOP favorite Rand Paul expressed this view in 2010 and Catos Ilya Shapiro expressed it just a few months ago on MSNBC.
These arent new concerns, of course. One white Nashville resident interviewed at the time of passage said the same thing about the Civil Rights Act: I also think that it is in violation to my civil rights if someone can say you must serve me. Nonetheless, it is telling that the embarrassment attached to claiming it is the racists who are the real victims in all of this has sufficiently subsided within the mainstream conservative movement that even GOP leaders are willing to reinvigorate the claim. I suppose thats par for the course for a movement thats also pushed the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and pursued an intentional campaign of voter suppression that disproportionately targets blacks and other people of color....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
It was DEMOCRATS who fought against the Civil Rights Act, not Republicans.
But we need to bring back jobs to America.
We have been sending American jobs to (everywhere else) for over a full generation.
Bring them back. Now.
I’m confused.I always thought it was southern Democrats who fought against civil rights laws.
>> Because wealth is the kind of thing that is passed down generations and the kind of thing that grows and grows, this initial racist starting point has opened up a yawning racial wealth gap that simply cannot be closed without intentional policy aimed at doing so.<<
I grew up poor — every dime of my wealth was accumulated by me — through hard work and thriftiness (things liberals will not abide).
If they are targeting generational wealth, then I damn well better one of the candidates for receiving.
On second read, I ask the same question of the author: How much of YOUR personal wealth have you spread?
Unless and until you give away 50% of your disposable income and give up all luxuries, you are not allowed to lecture ANYONE about “wealth redistribution.”
Is that not what the ACA is doing to the American medical profession?
Pop quiz - Who said this? I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.
I see Matt Bruenig’s CommieCore history is shining through.
I’ll be sending in my latest redistribution payments later today. The federal portion will be repurposed and paid out to others in the form of Earned Income Tax Credits. The state portion will be used to charge up EBT cards and pay for subsidized housing.
My cell phone bill will be along later, and part of it includes a redistribution payment that allows the acquisition of Obamaphones for layabouts.
My health insurance bill is on its way, and my bloated premium and sky-high deductible has built in redistribution payments that pay for my neighbor’s health insurance.
The Salon author can go probe himself with something sharp.
Thanks for remembering. Kind of puts the lie to the story, doesn’t it?
If I said what I really thought my entire post would be bleeped out of existence.
Anyone who advocates redistribution should have their income redistributed, as well as all their other property, savings, IRAs, 401Ks, safe deposit box contents, homes, cottages, vehicles, watercraft, etc. And the rest of us will see that it is enforced, because after all, we are the 99%.
Southern Republicans opposed it too, what few there were. Without Northern Republicans voting with Northern Democrats the bill wouldn't have passed.
He is right. If fact just about everything those evil racist segregationists warned about has come to pass.
tell that to:
Dr. Ben Carson
boys in da hood
looks like folks who are willing to work, utilize their God-given talents are doing ok.
Wealth has not been redistributed. Poverty has become the equilibrium attained. It’s not about the have-nots, it’s bringing the productive Citizen down to the do-nots.
You cannot give wealth it is earned from some source either in the present or the past! Wealth in the present cannot be attained with out a Nation of jobs and flourishing business.
It won’t be long before Gov jobs will begin to decline. A tax base is needed to sustain those jobs. The scale cannot balance. Gov jobs created are actually a higher form of Welfare! The Great Society has turned into the Massive Slum!
In fact, the Supreme Court decided in Minor v. Happersett that the states were free to prohibit women from voting regardless of the Equal Protections Clause of the then newly ratified 14th Amendment. The Court clarified that the 14th Amendment did not add any new protections to the Constitution, it just strengthened existing protections.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And since women did not have suffrage before the 14th Amendment was ratified, they didn't have suffrage after it was ratified.
Note that the states responded to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett by ratifying the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.
Otherwise, the states are free to make laws which discriminate on the basis of anything that the states have not amended the Constitution to expressly protect, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge enumerated protections.
The reason that many federal civil rights laws extend greatly beyond the rights that the states have constutionally authorized the feds to protect, just as corrupt Congress regularly oversteps its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, is the following imo. Corrupt federal politicians will promise anything to low-information voters, voters who have never been taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, in order to get themselves elected or remain in office.
We need to also bring back the NEED to work in order to obtain a full belly and the conveniences of modern technology.
The author is an idiot, but some surprisingly sane responses at the link.
There is economic discrimination. Anybody with money wears a target on their bank account.
There was one senator - John Tower of Texas - and 11 congressmen. All voted against it.
Income redistribution is slavery, one man forced to work for the benefit of others.
Racial wealth inequality DEF: give me your money, I will sit home, eat, drink, sleep, smoke and fornicate while you work and make money for me. Im sick of the sick and we need to load the institutions up with these idiots when they open thier mouths!
We are on the verge of a true Communist revolution.
If you go to many major cities, and talk to people, they are all for it.
God help us, but someday soon the Fedgov will move against us en masse.