Posted on 10/28/2017 10:23:05 AM PDT by street_lawyer
How about simply striking down laws that deny equal protection of the laws? I’m suggesting that the Civil Rights Laws, while they favored the disadvantaged they also harmed millions of innocent shopkeepers, increased the cost of production because the best workers could not be hired in order to satisfy a one size fits all philosophy; additionally, I might suggest that those laws created a special class of individuals who have become wards of the Nanny State. Those laws gave rise to the perception that we are all bigots, guilty until proven innocent.
I am suggesting that the Constitution provides sufficient protection for individuals who are discriminate against. Take for example the case of James Meredith who was denied admission to the University of Mississippi because of his race. He sued and won, and Federal Marshalls escorted Meredith on campus. Violence erupted and those who were violating the law were arrested. I took 16,000 National Guardsmen to end the violence. No innocent people were coerced. No one was punished except the bigots who revolted. I’m sure we agree that the University was wrong. There are millions of while people who supported Meredith. There was no need for a Civil Rights Law that coerced innocent people. The constitution the courts and law enforcement would suffice quite well in the absence of the Civil Rights Laws.
I certainly agree that bigotry is not something that “can be remedied simply”, but I would like to suggest that trying to legislate morality is not a quick fix and innocent people are harmed. I also wholeheartedly agree that it would take time to change hearts. But isn’t it also true that addiction to alcohol might take many, many, sessions and cannot be remedied simply by giving someone a pill?
I realize that most everyone now would side with the position that we need laws that punish discrimination. Civil Rights Law is a misnomer. Many whites have been denied admission to colleges and jobs because of the quotas that those laws created. Innocent shopkeepers were put out of business. I might suggest that at least some shop owners were unwilling to open shops because they would be required to hire workers who were not chosen because of their work ethic, but rather because they are a special class that was legislatively created. I am suggesting that the total ramifications of the Civil Rights Laws have been elusive as are the results of cap and trade. These laws address a perceived danger and the general population can only appreciate the immediate effects. They cannot see past phase one to appreciate all the ultimate ramifications.
My objection to the Civil Rights Laws is not that they produced no moral benefit. My objection is that they are coercive, harmed innocent people, give rise to the perception that we are a nation of bigots, harmed the economy, gave a special status to certain individuals, led to more and more government coercion in the form of mandates, quotas, and finally now we have mind control where a person who injures a member of a protected class is subject to a higher penalty because it is a hate crime.
Street Lawyer
The Left is completely wedded to Affirmative Action “to right past injustices - aren’t you for social justice!?”
You are clearly a racist for even questioning it.
Do I really need the the < /s> tag?
We are hoping for a return to equal rights under the law with an originalist and textualist Supreme Court.
If President Trump appoints one more originalist/textualist to the Supreme Court to replace one of the ardent leftists, or semi-leftists in the case of Kennedy, the Court will have an originalist/textualist majority for the first time in 70 years.
BINGO! That was their purpose.AKA Democrat voters.
You see it on college campuses, and in Black Studies courses.
Equal in what way?
Creative application of “equal” is what the Left is abusing to gain gay marriage, transgenderism, women in combat, men in women’s bathrooms, redistribution of wealth, handicap hosts in all swimming pools, destruction of a local historical architecture for inability to accommodate elevators, etc.
Your views are aptly represented in the article. i.e. “equal” is not “equal”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.