With whom would you sit in regard to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

With whom and why?

[Franzl]

The federal government, of course.

There is no rational argument against the government ensuring that every citizen enjoy equal rights and equal protection from the law.

[??????????]

The law was redundant. Simply enforce what already existed.

[memphis]

The law was redundant. Simply enforce what already existed.

How was it redundant? There were plenty of examples (far too many to count) of systematic, pervasive discrimination before 1964.

[??????????]

Then the 14th should have had better enforcement.

[Brittain33]

Then the 14th should have had better enforcement.

Legislation is the nuts-and-bolts enforcement side of the principles stated in constitutional amendments. That is why the 18th amendment establishing Prohibition was followed by the Volstead Act, providing for specific penalties and enforcement clauses. In truth, you support the Voting Rights Act, because it provided for the enforcement you feel the 14th Amendment lacked.

[Brittain33]

Section 5 of the amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congress declined to pursue this after Reconstruction because it wasn't particularly interested in enforcing the rights of African-Americans in the South to vote. Hence, no legislation to enforce it. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 fulfilled the amendment's mandate by providing for enforcement.

[Torie]

I have this aversion to government in any way facilitating behavior which labels or treats any of our citizens as second class, subjecting them to  humiliation. And that was what was occurring. Beyond that, making it more difficult or effectively impossible for some citizens to vote undermines the moral authority of the government to do much of anything at all, and the use of the term "democracy" a cruel joke.

[Brittain33]

This is all about the 15th Amendment, not the 14th. In any case it contains the same clause.

[memphis]

The Voting Rights Act was in 1965. The Civil Rights Act (one anyway) was 1964. Reconstruction Congresses did pass Civil Rights legislation, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Voting Rights Act was in 1965. The Civil Rights Act (one anyway) was 1964. Reconstruction Congresses did pass Civil Rights legislation, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

Damn, I meant 1964 Civil Rights of course.

Fixed.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I would support the civil rights movement.

[Bo]

The Federal govt.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Federal Government, of course.

[Sewer]

Fedgov

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd wholeheartedly support the federal government in this situation.

[Derek]

I go with the states. It's unfortunate what they were doing, but this is freedom at its worst.