Hurricane Bruiser
05-25-2010, 03:59 PM
Great article by Robert Levy
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37703.html
Here is a portion:
Rand Paul has taken a principled but politically incorrect position, for which hes being pilloried. A look behind the 6-second-sound-bite version of his position might be helpful.
Despite how his comments have played, Paul has said he is glad that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. He accepts the Civil Rights Act as settled U.S. law not to be revisited by the courts despite possible constitutional infirmities.
But, though the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 act, the law has a disputable constitutional pedigree.
The Civil Rights Act addresses the conduct of private individuals, so it is not easily shoehorned into the 14th Amendment, which constrains only government conduct. And the act has nothing to do with reducing state-imposed obstacles to the free flow of interstate trade so it should not have been legitimized under an original understanding of the commerce clause.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37703.html
Here is a portion:
Rand Paul has taken a principled but politically incorrect position, for which hes being pilloried. A look behind the 6-second-sound-bite version of his position might be helpful.
Despite how his comments have played, Paul has said he is glad that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. He accepts the Civil Rights Act as settled U.S. law not to be revisited by the courts despite possible constitutional infirmities.
But, though the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 act, the law has a disputable constitutional pedigree.
The Civil Rights Act addresses the conduct of private individuals, so it is not easily shoehorned into the 14th Amendment, which constrains only government conduct. And the act has nothing to do with reducing state-imposed obstacles to the free flow of interstate trade so it should not have been legitimized under an original understanding of the commerce clause.