Can states segregate?

[TommyJeff]

The Sup. Ct decided long ago that seperate but equal is equal: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal


I cannot find anything in the US Constitution that gives the Fed Govt power to make such a law. But what about the 10th amendment - can states make such laws? Or maybe a better way to ask would be - where is it written that prevents this overreach from happening at any point in the future?

[Christian Liberty]

Constitutionally, probably. But, its one of those things that's probably better not discussed, since its such a technical point.

[TommyJeff]

Constitutionally, probably. But, its one of those things that's probably better not discussed, since its such a technical point.

I'm not sure i understand what you mean. Why is it better not discussed?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure i understand what you mean. Why is it better not discussed?

I mean more as a tactical issue in the general political arena. In other words, no its not constitutional to tell a state that they can't segregate, but I don't think that's really the constitutional issue we should make our political stand on.

[acptulsa]

The Sup. Ct decided long ago that seperate but equal is equal: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal


I cannot find anything in the US Constitution that gives the Fed Govt power to make such a law. But what about the 10th amendment - can states make such laws? Or maybe a better way to ask would be - where is it written that prevents this overreach from happening at any point in the future?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 'where it is written', or to put it another way, is the federal law involved and the end of segregation. Separate but equal was never a law, only an interpretation of the Constitution, an attempt to balance states' rights and the Tenth, and neither the beginning nor the end of segregation, but rather an attempt by the Supreme Court to regulate it.

So is the CRA'64 overreach? Is that the question? How many points of view would you like; we have a million of 'em.

[angelatc]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 'where it is written', or to put it another way, is the federal law involved and the end of segregation. Separate but equal was never a law, only an interpretation of the Constitution, an attempt to balance states' rights and the Tenth, and neither the beginning nor the end of segregation, but rather an attempt by the Supreme Court to regulate it.

So is the CRA'64 overreach? Is that the question? How many points of view would you like; we have a million of 'em.

Yes, but they're desperately trying to stamp that out.

[Acala]

Governments at all levels are prohibited from racial discrimination by Federal statutory law.

[TommyJeff]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 'where it is written', or to put it another way, is the federal law involved and the end of segregation. Separate but equal was never a law, only an interpretation of the Constitution, an attempt to balance states' rights and the Tenth, and neither the beginning nor the end of segregation, but rather an attempt by the Supreme Court to regulate it.

That is a law, not an amendment to the Constitution.

So is the CRA'64 overreach? Is that the question? How many points of view would you like; we have a million of 'em.

Not an overreach, but asking if it was needed? Was this needed as it was not written anywhere else?

[acptulsa]

That is a law, not an amendment to the Constitution.

I assume you're talking about the CRA'64 and not the Tenth Amendment? Who said otherwise? An Act is a law. An Amendment is an amendment. And so has it always been.

Not an overreach, but asking if it was needed? Was this needed as it was not written anywhere else?

Which--the CRA'64? It was needed to end segregation. Did segregation need to be ended? That was a good thing in many ways, but not in every way. It certainly led to the failure of thousands and thousands of minority-owned businesses. So, obviously it could have been done better. Whether you think it was too much or not enough, it did not obey the Hippocratic Oath. It did do minority business owners harm.

[TommyJeff]

I assume you're talking about the CRA'64 and not the Tenth Amendment? Who said otherwise? An Act is a law. An Amendment is an amendment. And so has it always been.



Which--the CRA'64? It was needed to end segregation. Did segregation need to be ended? That was a good thing in many ways, but not in every way. It certainly led to the failure of thousands and thousands of minority-owned businesses. So, obviously it could have been done better. Whether you think it was too much or not enough, it did not obey the Hippocratic Oath. It did do minority business owners harm.

I agree that ending segregation is good. I was asking if the Constitution failed to provide such a thing for the nation? Where is power given 'to' segregate. If the power isn't there to segregate, why would there be a need for a law to end it? Was this a failure of the courts 'interpreting' when they should have been reading......or is this a failure of the Constitution? The reason for the question about 'states' in OP is because the federal Constitution says nothing at all about segregation, but it does offer the 10th Amendment - so I am wondering, if that means the state's have nearly limitless power and is segregation therefore legal under state law according to the Constitution? (note i did say nearly, not fully)


I appreciate your replies.

[acptulsa]

I agree that ending segregation is good.

But I don't recall saying it was an unqualified success. It isn't just the uncountable minority-owned businesses that failed, either--it's minority-run schools that dried up and blew away, leaving their faculties out in the cold, and countless other things.

It was only an unqualified success for most of the big corporations operating in the nation--at the expense of small businesses and the small communities (little towns, neighborhoods) they enriched. So, the authors of that law were clearly not thinking deeply enough about the repercussions. Or didn't care because certain big corporations paid them not to.

I was asking if the Constitution failed to provide such a thing for the nation? Where is power given 'to' segregate. If the power isn't there to segregate, why would there be a need for a law to end it? Was this a failure of the courts 'interpreting' when they should have been reading......or is this a failure of the Constitution? The reason for the question about 'states' in OP is because the federal Constitution says nothing at all about segregation, but it does offer the 10th Amendment - so I am wondering, if that means the state's have nearly limitless power and is segregation therefore legal under state law according to the Constitution? (note i did say nearly, not fully)

Yes, before the federal statute was passed. No, after the federal statute was passed. As for whether the CRA'64 was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, well, your opinion is as good as mine.

[tod evans]

Can states segregate?

I wish they would.

All of the tax-ticks, anybody whose income is provided by the taxpayers, must live on one side of the state and the productive folks on the other.

Large walls and moats should be employed too, maybe drones and machine gun towers.....

[Acala]

I agree that ending segregation is good. I was asking if the Constitution failed to provide such a thing for the nation? Where is power given 'to' segregate. If the power isn't there to segregate, why would there be a need for a law to end it? Was this a failure of the courts 'interpreting' when they should have been reading......or is this a failure of the Constitution? The reason for the question about 'states' in OP is because the federal Constitution says nothing at all about segregation, but it does offer the 10th Amendment - so I am wondering, if that means the state's have nearly limitless power and is segregation therefore legal under state law according to the Constitution? (note i did say nearly, not fully)


I appreciate your replies.

The Federal government is (in theory) one of enumerated powers. Those powers not specifically granted are denied.

The State governments have plenary power. Those powers not specifically denied are granted.

[fisharmor]

I'm not sure i understand what you mean. Why is it better not discussed?

Because it takes a minimum of about two weeks of casual study, coupled with some sound logic, to realize that there have never been enough people willing to stick to a constitution to make it a viable form of government.

Everyone who claims to want to stick to the constitution in fact reads something into it that isn't there, almost always in direct contradiction to the 10th Amendment.

Throw in the fact that the US constitution was itself a power grab, and it becomes clear that things can't really pan out any differenttly from what we have now.

Once you get to that point you have to make a choice. Either continue to support the idea of a utopian minarchist government that has never really existed, or give up on the idea.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wish they would.

All of the tax-ticks, anybody whose income is provided by the taxpayers, must live on one side of the state and the productive folks on the other.

Large walls and moats should be employed too, maybe drones and machine gun towers.....

But...how would teh police take care of us????

[Sonny Tufts]

The separate-but-equal doctrine, espoused by the Supreme Court in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The Court ruled that state-mandeated racial segregation in public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

[acptulsa]

The separate-but-equal doctrine, espoused by the Supreme Court in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The Court ruled that state-mandeated racial segregation in public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Nicely stated. But it was the CRA'64 that took it beyond the schools.

I was a mite careless in a previous post, wasn't I? Thanks for the correction.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It's a complex issue. As a general rule, segregation, if it is done should be done via private property or as local a government as possible.

Because it takes a minimum of about two weeks of casual study, coupled with some sound logic, to realize that there have never been enough people willing to stick to a constitution to make it a viable form of government.

Everyone who claims to want to stick to the constitution in fact reads something into it that isn't there, almost always in direct contradiction to the 10th Amendment.

Throw in the fact that the US constitution was itself a power grab, and it becomes clear that things can't really pan out any differenttly from what we have now.

Once you get to that point you have to make a choice. Either continue to support the idea of a utopian minarchist government that has never really existed, or give up on the idea.

The Constitution is a flawed document, no doubt. As long as the USA exists as a nation-state though, it should be run by strict constitutional limits. To discuss a different form of government would necessitate the dissolution of the political entity known as the United States. Plenty of us might want that (including me, no doubt) but it's not going to happen anytime soon, so if libertarians actually want to see some form of improvement in their lifetimes, we have to actually look for workable strategies. The kind of massive, intrusive statism that the West suffers from is actually a relatively recent thing; even 16th century mercantilist societies didn't have anywhere near the kind of cancerous big governments we have now.

The great civilizations of the past, the widest reaching empires of antiquity didn't have the monolithic, centralized state power of the modern age. Libertarian views of history tend to focus on the state, but the history of civilization is every bit as much the history of the evolution of private property, and by extension the market. It's rare, but history has shown that it is possible to shrink government, and the Constitution is a blueprint for that, both in the limits that it sets and in the impetus to shrink the state. There's lots of work to be done to change the modern view of the document, but the foundation is there.

[fisharmor]

As long as the USA exists as a nation-state though, it should be run by strict constitutional limits.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

The major advantage of constitutional government is that it gives people who want rule of law something to grab their attention, to draw it away from the fact that they are ruled by the lawless.

It never happened.
It never will.

[TommyJeff]

The Constitution is a flawed document, no doubt.
.......... It's rare, but history has shown that it is possible to shrink government, and the Constitution is a blueprint for that, both in the limits that it sets and in the impetus to shrink the state. There's lots of work to be done to change the modern view of the document, but the foundation is there.

This sounds like you believe the constitution is living/breathing like a Democrat may believe. Is this how you see the document?
I enjoyed your post. If this takes the OP too far off topic we can start a new one.

[Southron]

The 14th Amendment has always been applied selectively at best.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This sounds like you believe the constitution is living/breathing like a Democrat may believe. Is this how you see the document?
I enjoyed your post. If this takes the OP too far off topic we can start a new one.

That's the second time you said that, so you should know that threads often get off topic. People often just skip over things they don't want to read anyway. Probably no big deal.

Anyway, do you think the constitution is a living, breathing document? We often get stale here with the same opinions, so it's often good to hear new blood.

And welcome to the forums!

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

This sounds like you believe the constitution is living/breathing like a Democrat may believe. Is this how you see the document?
I enjoyed your post. If this takes the OP too far off topic we can start a new one.

I don't believe that, that's one of the things that need to change in terms of what people think about the Constitution. The idea of a "living document" is weird, because it paradoxically deifies the Constitution, but also makes it worthless:

It deifies the document because of the idea that the words of the Founders somehow reverberate throughout history and modern, progressive ideas can be found within it, even though those ideas are totally anachronistic to any thinker from the 18th century.

It makes the document useless because pretty much any idea can be found in the Constitution if you read it a certain way. The idea that the general welfare clause allows the government to do basically anything is a perfect example of this.

My idea of the Constitution, is that if you want to run government by the document, you must have a rigorous and strict interpretation of it. Run government only by what is allowed in the text, and change the document only through the amendment process. The Constitution is hardly ideal, but a state with strict Constitutional limits is far better than what we have now. The ideas we need to move away from are (among others): that the Constitution is a "living document", that the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the document and that the amendment process isn't necessary; parts of the Bill of Rights can't be viewed as antiquated because they're old.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

The major advantage of constitutional government is that it gives people who want rule of law something to grab their attention, to draw it away from the fact that they are ruled by the lawless.

It never happened.
It never will.

The Constitution limited state power reasonably well for much of the nation's history. It's only in the 20th century that we see this massive, cancerous state emerging. 19th century America was far from flawless, but the government was a fraction of a fraction of the size it is now. Even today, the US is the only Western country without ridiculous "hate speech" laws on the books, and one of the few where gun ownership is culturally accepted. The Constitution certainly hasn't done enough to limits state power over the years, but anyone for smaller government should at least be glad it's there.

The idea that either we're toward having anarcho-capitalism or everything is awful is simplistic and a-historical. This all-or-nothing attitude won't make ancaps valiant freedom fighters, it will only maintain our irrelevancy.

[Christian Liberty]

I wish they would.

All of the tax-ticks, anybody whose income is provided by the taxpayers, must live on one side of the state and the productive folks on the other.

Large walls and moats should be employed too, maybe drones and machine gun towers.....

Soldiers to?

Because it takes a minimum of about two weeks of casual study, coupled with some sound logic, to realize that there have never been enough people willing to stick to a constitution to make it a viable form of government.

Everyone who claims to want to stick to the constitution in fact reads something into it that isn't there, almost always in direct contradiction to the 10th Amendment.

Throw in the fact that the US constitution was itself a power grab, and it becomes clear that things can't really pan out any differenttly from what we have now.

Once you get to that point you have to make a choice. Either continue to support the idea of a utopian minarchist government that has never really existed, or give up on the idea.

Ancap has never really been done either.

[tod evans]

Soldiers to?

Of course their income is 100% provided by the taxpayers isn't it?

[heavenlyboy34]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

The major advantage of constitutional government is that it gives people who want rule of law something to grab their attention, to draw it away from the fact that they are ruled by the lawless.

It never happened.
It never will.

Thread winnar! +rep

[heavenlyboy34]

The Constitution limited state power reasonably well for much of the nation's history. It's only in the 20th century that we see this massive, cancerous state emerging. 19th century America was far from flawless, but the government was a fraction of a fraction of the size it is now. Even today, the US is the only Western country without ridiculous "hate speech" laws on the books, and one of the few where gun ownership is culturally accepted. The Constitution certainly hasn't done enough to limits state power over the years, but anyone for smaller government should at least be glad it's there.

The idea that either we're toward having anarcho-capitalism or everything is awful is simplistic and a-historical. This all-or-nothing attitude won't make ancaps valiant freedom fighters, it will only maintain our irrelevancy.

Formally, yes, but libel and certain other types of speech aren't legally protected-so technically no. And of course, saying the "wrong" thing when Big Sister is listening can land you in Federal custody.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Formally, yes, but libel and certain other types of speech aren't legally protected-so technically no. And of course, saying the "wrong" thing when Big Sister is listening can land you in Federal custody.

Free speech as a legal construct has always been a separate concept from libel, and I see no reason why that wouldn't be true in a radical libertarian society. In Britain, people get arrested for offensive tweets and "racial hatred". Why doesn't that happen here? The First Amendment. It's not perfect, but I'm glad it's here. If it weren't, we'd be just like Europe and its speech laws, if not worse in regards to speech, gun ownership and a lot of other things.

[osan]

The Sup. Ct decided long ago that seperate but equal is equal: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal


I cannot find anything in the US Constitution that gives the Fed Govt power to make such a law. But what about the 10th amendment - can states make such laws? Or maybe a better way to ask would be - where is it written that prevents this overreach from happening at any point in the future?

Since there is no such a thing as "the state", the answer is no.

People segregate, not "the state". To claim otherwise is to let the real perpetrators off the hook. People are, in general, inexcusably stoopid. They use words and the underlying concepts represented in cavalierly inept fashion. What jerkoffs.

"The state" doesn't mandate anything. People mandate whilst hiding behind the lie that is "the state". The real crime lies with the hordes of corrupt idiots who comprise the so-called "chain of obedience", either standing idly by as the force-agents of those issuing the fiats, while working their own crimes as they, too, hide behind words such as "state", "law", "orders", and "I'm only doing my job", or acting themselves as said agents, pursuant to the mountain of lies upon which most people comport themselves through their days.

When one examines the reality of humanity, the ways in which people think and act on the average, the specter of the train wreck that is the race of men comes into sharp, impact-laden focus. Humanity, taken on the whole, is the greatest disaster that has ever befallen this world - no question and no doubt.

It is clear to me that the human animal, once "corrupted", is almost always beyond salvation, though not because he is hopeless in himself. Rather, it is the environment that holds insufficient consequences for his $#@!ty behavior, preserving him in his fallen state and thereby encourages others to follow suit. When human stupidity and rottenness are not given support; when stupid and criminal behaviors carry sufficiently unpleasant consequences, people learn how to edit themselves. Otherwise, they go as far as circumstance will allow. Our misguided sense of permissiveness, which often protects criminal behavior, gets us into lots of trouble in the greater scheme of things. Until we cut the $#@!, we can expect nothing to improve.