Cynanthrope
05-21-2010, 03:43 PM
I was browsing through DU and found this:
His position (WRT the Civil Rights Act of 1964) doesn't seem racist on its face. Libertarians believe that it is not the place of the federal government to interfere with private business. The prevailing jurisprudence on federal powers was similar to Paul's position until 1937, when the Supreme Court upheld powers expanded by the New Deal. The federal government is only supposed to be able to regulate interstate commerce, and the National Labor Relations Board decision in 1937 expanded that to apply to anything that had a "substantial impact" on interstate commerce.
There was another decision immediately after the passage of the Civil Rights Act which challenged the power of the government to prevent discrimination by businesses that neither used public funds nor dealt in interstate commerce (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States). The Court was unanimous in upholding the government's authority in that case, primarily on the grounds that the motel served patrons from out of state. But I still think that you can make an argument that it is not the government's place to prevent discrimination by those businesses.
It is not an endorsement of racism to say that racist speech is protected speech under the First Amendment. Similarly, it is not an endorsement of discrimination to say that the government doesn't have the power to prevent some forms of discrimination. I was invited to play tennis at a whites-only country club a couple of years ago. I declined, since I think that kind of discrimination is despicable, and I think considerably less of the person who invited me than I did before I found out that the country club (which the person is very proud of) didn't allow black people. But I am not convinced the government is within its rights to prevent every act of discrimination.
Certainly Paul has shown himself to be a weasel with his subsequent vacillation on this. He seems to think less of his own argument than I do, since he won't stand by it.
hXXp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8386504
It's just something interesting that I'd to share.
In addition, perhaps we can use some of this rhetoric to convince the politically correct and left-wingers?
His position (WRT the Civil Rights Act of 1964) doesn't seem racist on its face. Libertarians believe that it is not the place of the federal government to interfere with private business. The prevailing jurisprudence on federal powers was similar to Paul's position until 1937, when the Supreme Court upheld powers expanded by the New Deal. The federal government is only supposed to be able to regulate interstate commerce, and the National Labor Relations Board decision in 1937 expanded that to apply to anything that had a "substantial impact" on interstate commerce.
There was another decision immediately after the passage of the Civil Rights Act which challenged the power of the government to prevent discrimination by businesses that neither used public funds nor dealt in interstate commerce (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States). The Court was unanimous in upholding the government's authority in that case, primarily on the grounds that the motel served patrons from out of state. But I still think that you can make an argument that it is not the government's place to prevent discrimination by those businesses.
It is not an endorsement of racism to say that racist speech is protected speech under the First Amendment. Similarly, it is not an endorsement of discrimination to say that the government doesn't have the power to prevent some forms of discrimination. I was invited to play tennis at a whites-only country club a couple of years ago. I declined, since I think that kind of discrimination is despicable, and I think considerably less of the person who invited me than I did before I found out that the country club (which the person is very proud of) didn't allow black people. But I am not convinced the government is within its rights to prevent every act of discrimination.
Certainly Paul has shown himself to be a weasel with his subsequent vacillation on this. He seems to think less of his own argument than I do, since he won't stand by it.
hXXp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8386504
It's just something interesting that I'd to share.
In addition, perhaps we can use some of this rhetoric to convince the politically correct and left-wingers?