It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: "I Would Not Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act"

page: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I'm not disagreeing with you in the least. It just seems like every time the government steps in to protect rights, it ends up taking just a little bit from individuals. It gets a little old. They waffle around, and when the point finally comes where they need to do their job, they get overzealous and start punishing individuals for their own failings in the past.

edit on 15-5-2011 by Wooliebear because: clarity




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
reply to post by The Sword
 


See that is the cool thing about this..

If i went to a store lets say.. Bob's big ass tires.. and on the front it says No black and Arabs allowed.. I would probably be like well this guy is a douche and goto Jim's big ass tires because jim likes everyone..

Sooner or later Bob will be out of business because he was a douchebag and jim will have all the business he can have and them some..

Free market at its best.



nice example. I agree. Civil Rights keeps racism alive. When it is stripped down, it all goes back to segregation amd who has all the green.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wooliebear
 


You did not answer my question as to what liberties have been surrendered to the Civil Rights Act. I am looking for a specific and direct answer to that question and that question only for the time being. I am really having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by DoesAnythingEverHappen
So searching on the internet where you can find virtually anything proves your point? Look there is racism still here, but it is not as widespread as many are claiming. Please don't think you prove a point by finding some YouTube video or Internet pictures of racists. I could easily google any type of group and use those results as proof under your premise.


Actually that is a clip that I saw on International News. It was a big story. There is even a thread on ATS about it somewhere. I will try to find it. My points were simple. Racism still exists in the US. Many white people are not the least bit ashamed to gather in public in front of cameras and extol said racism. Black people may get to ride in front of the bus now but people who chose to follow Islam or appear middle eastern are not allowed to build houses of worship as other religions in the US are.

My video proved all of those things.

I found it. There are actually more but this is the one I had read.
Anti-Muslim hate rally summons the ghosts of Jim Crow
edit on 15-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)


Ok let me go find a black panther video about them hating white people...to prove something you must show something to people they don't know. People know crazy people exist who hate for no reason, but thankfully they are the minority. Racism exists. It always will regardless of what laws there are. The Civil Rights act was necessary in 1964, but not today. However, I would not support repeal, and nether would Ron Paul because it would accomplish nothing and wastes time.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977
reply to post by Wooliebear
 


You did not answer my question as to what liberties have been surrendered to the Civil Rights Act. I am looking for a specific and direct answer to that question and that question only for the time being. I am really having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one.


Oh, one of you. The old "I'm going to hone in on one sentence out of multiple posts because that's the only part I can muster a respectable response to" trick. Too bad you forgot the respectable response part.

Fine.

If Joe hates black people and owns a business, too bad. He either serves every body of nobody. It doesn't matter that he alone is responsible for his property and business. Doesn't matter he bought it with his own money, or that the government will collect taxes no matter who chooses to pay for goods or services from him.

I don't feel bad for Joe. Joe is a jerk, but Joe still has rights. Personally I would rather Joe be able to post a sign saying No Blacks Allowed. It would serve as a nice warning, lest I support somebody with cash whom I would otherwise not give the time of day to.

Do you want me to say I want the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason? Done. I absolutely do, 100%
Not because I want to go back 50 years to the old days, but because I believe the person responsible for their property or business should be able to make their own decisions.

Feel free to address the rest of my arguments at any time

PS it should also be the Civil Liberties Act, not Right. Civil rights are tied to legal rights, liberties stem from natural rights. More on the difference here: Civil Rights vs Civil Liberties
edit on 15-5-2011 by Wooliebear because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


No it won't be moved to the hoax section.

READ the article before you make such outlandish claims!



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessLurker
 


Certainly not as stupid as some of the comments that followed it.

Keep on defending your messiah, people. You can no longer complain about Obama supporters when you will defend Ron at the drop of a hat.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Thats the thing. I'm pretty sure most these people underplaying the depth to which racism is embedded in our culture are all young, white, and relatively privileged.. They think 'racism' is this horrible thing from the distant past where white people burned crosses and lynched people.


I was thinking the exact same thing myself in between noticing the number of posts I find on ATS promoting or cheering on discrimination against Muslims and Mexicans. The argument I am hearing hear seems to be white people saying that racism is dead because they let a black guy be president. Of course a bunch of them are trying to say he is a spy from Africa but that has nothing to do with his race I guess.



Watching that crowd of people chant at those Muslims to "go home" as if they were from a different land just because they were a different religion tells me more than enough that racism is not only not dead in the US, it has morphed into something more socially acceptable even within the laws now. I see it is ok to deny Muslims passage on a plane now if it makes other people feel "icky." But I am sure those people all have a black friend so it is ok.


edit on 15-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)


As a WASP you guys are what we call "White Trash" and that makes you no better than the other trash..tattoos included.
edit on 15-5-2011 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...



Just about a year after his son Rand Paul stepped in it when he told Rachel Maddow he was opposed to provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told Chris Matthews Friday he wouldn't have voted for the law in the first place had he been in Congress at the time. Rand's statements on the law (which he later retracted) came during his first week as the Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky in 2010. Ron's criticisms of the law came on the day he declared his third run for the presidency. "Yeah," he told Matthews when asked if he would have voted against the act in Congress. "But I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws."


I can't cast for a vote for Ron Paul because of this. Yes, the civil rights act might seem unfair to business owners, etc. However, they should not have the right to discriminate. Can you imagine if businesses DID have this right? They could refuse to hire ANYONE, thus adding to the problems with unemployment, welfare and so forth.

Ron, if the market would have ended segregation, etc, why didn't this happen before the Civil Rights Act was passed?

I'm not buying his reasoning here. I think he should worry more about cutting the defense budget, ending wars, ending the Fed and shoring up unnecessary pork.

Keep your hands off of the social issues, Ron.


He could fix all the problems we are facing and build a better America for our children, yet you won't vote for him because he wouldn't have voted for the 1964 civil rights act?
I'm guessing you will vote for Obama because of Hope and Change Revisited?

You took his statement without listening to his reasons. Would you rather be lied to and fed buckets-full of BS?
I'm guessing yes. Maybe we are doomed because I know you are not the only one who will decide based on this.

Lord, please help the collective sheeple pull their heads out of...well you know where.
edit on 15-5-2011 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Businesses should have the right to discriminate. I know that is a very unpopular statement, but in a free society discrimination is a necessary evil. I hate discrimination, and I think that people who discriminate based on color, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc are despicable and ignorant. Having said that, if I own a business I can cater to whoever I want to because my business is my private property.

If businesses were allowed to discriminate, as they should be, the free market would eventually put them out of business. As a consumer, I would never do business with someone that openly discriminated against anyone, and I would be willing to bet that there are plenty of people out there that feel the same way. If a restaurant refused to serve blacks, then word would get out about that restaurant and they wouldn't do much business and be forced to close their doors as a result. I think that is a good thing.

Look at it this way... if the store on the corner could put up a sign out front that said "No Blacks", their racism would be obvious to everyone. If you are black would you rather know that the store on the corner is run by a bunch of ignorant racists, thereby avoiding that store and taking your hard earned money elsewhere, or would you rather do business in a store run by a bunch of ignorant racists that have no choice, because of the law, but to do business with you, all the while you have no idea that the store is owned by ignorant racists? If anything, the civil rights act made it easier to disguise or hide racism in the market. I understand the intent of the civil rights act, but you must realize who the people are that played a role in passing it.

Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights act in 1964. What you didn't learn in school is that five years before this, LBJ was the Senate Majority Leader and filibustered this very same act that was originally brought to light by President Eisenhower, a Republican. LBJ wanted to wait for a better time, or should I say, a more politically prudent time for Democrats to pass the act. Here's some food for thought... upon passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, LBJ was quoted as saying "I'll have those N*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." was he right? Black People... YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS BY THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT... my hope is that one day you will all wake up and realize that the people you support are only using you as political pawns in order to retain power and control.

and now I'll sit back and watch the claims that I'm a racist come rolling in, because the accusers can't break my argument, they can only attack me with baseless claims.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wooliebear

Originally posted by Runaway1977
reply to post by Wooliebear
 


You did not answer my question as to what liberties have been surrendered to the Civil Rights Act. I am looking for a specific and direct answer to that question and that question only for the time being. I am really having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one.


Oh, one of you. The old "I'm going to hone in on one sentence out of multiple posts because that's the only part I can muster a respectable response to" trick. Too bad you forgot the respectable response part.

Fine.

If Joe hates black people and owns a business, too bad. He either serves every body of nobody. It doesn't matter that he alone is responsible for his property and business. Doesn't matter he bought it with his own money, or that the government will collect taxes no matter who chooses to pay for goods or services from him.

I don't feel bad for Joe. Joe is a jerk, but Joe still has rights. Personally I would rather Joe be able to post a sign saying No Blacks Allowed. It would serve as a nice warning, lest I support somebody with cash whom I would otherwise not give the time of day to.

Do you want me to say I want the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason? Done. I absolutely do, 100%
Not because I want to go back 50 years to the old days, but because I believe the person responsible for their property or business should be able to make their own decisions.

Feel free to address the rest of my arguments at any time

PS it should also be the Civil Liberties Act, not Right. Civil rights are tied to legal rights, liberties stem from natural rights. More on the difference here: Civil Rights vs Civil Liberties
edit on 15-5-2011 by Wooliebear because: (no reason given)



Well said. People need to realize that freedom and liberty means that you will be offended from time to time. As a white guy, I would love it if a business owner's ignorance was displayed on a sign in front for the world to see. That way I could take my money elsewhere. If anything, the CRA of 1964 helped the racists out more than it helped blacks, and that is a shame to say the least.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Segregation was law, and he's against that one too.
Maybe we shouldn't have been unjustly discriminating in the first place.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here's some info about Dr Paul and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and some backfiring to you leftys' claim that he is racist.

Pulled these from his Wiki page
Ron Paul Wiki


Paul took a critical view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.



'The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual.'


Here's an interview from the Austin branch President of the NAACP Nelson Linder regarding Ron Paul and racism.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Simple, that is the fact the greater group nor any wings of the group are failing to either slam, condemn or to speak out against this stance speaks volumes.


Years later and people still can't grasp that the tea parties are not a singular cohesive unit and that one singular person never has and never will speak for the entirety of the group. It's sad really. Not to mention rather off topic.


None of them would've voted for it so that they can exploit African Americans for cheap labour for their corporate donors and sponsors


I'd like to see your polling results where you went cross-country and asked everyone who associates with the tea parties whether or not they would've voted for it. What's that? You don't have any polling results because you're making asinine assumptions in an attempt to prove your point? Ahh, I see. Carry on then. I'll take my rationality elsewhere.


Next time, come up with an original thought please.


Next time, come up with a response that doesn't make you sound like you're needlessly being an ass.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wooliebear
You guys realize segregation was mostly enforced through state laws, right?

The point Paul was trying to make was that he would not have voted for a law to solve a problem laws caused in the first place. Especially when said law goes straight against property rights. The government "stepped in" its own garbage.

I'm not saying the federal government should have stayed out of it entirely, I actually think this is one of the most important functions it serves. They should have gone after the unconstitutional laws pushed by these states.


You have got to be joking me? Remember Mississippi and Louisiana? Evidently not. The Govenor's of both tried to block segregation and Eisenhower wound up having to order the National Guard in to force the segregation. Try re reading where ever you got that lie from.

If Civil Rights for African Americans weren't mandated then we'd still have "Coloured" and "White" establishments, eateries and schools so something had to be done.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
As a WASP you guys are what we call "White Trash" and that makes you no better than the other trash..tattoos included.
edit on 15-5-2011 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)


And "You guys" would be whom exactly? I am not at all clear on who you are calling white trash if you read any of the text in my post. My guess would be that you believe you are responding to the men in the photograph but I hate to have to guess.

Why might I be white trash?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Do you understand WHERE the "authority" for that Law comes from??? Because that not racism is the basis for Ron Paul's stand.


....Upon being rebuffed by the Supreme Court, Roosevelt threatened to expand the number of justices on the Court in order to be able to pack the Court with sympathizers and thereby gain court approval of his threatened New Deal programs. That created something of a standoff between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court.

It was into this politically-charged situation that the legal case of Wickard v. Filburn came to the Supreme Court. Because of the real threat of Court-packing by Roosevelt, the Supreme Court blinked on Wickard.

Wickard was a wheat farmer in Illinois and Filburn was the Secretary of Agriculture. In order to maintain wheat prices, Congress had instituted price supports for Wheat markets, along with quotas for growing wheat. Wickard was not only growing wheat for market, but he also grew an extra acre of wheat to harvest to give to his wife to grind into flour to make bread for the Wickard family. The Department of Agriculture, tasked to enforce the wheat quotas, asserted that the acre of wheat Wickard grew for his family was a violation of the quotas.

Wickard sued.

The Department of Agriculture claimed that Congress had commerce clause authority under the Constitution to prohibit Wickard’s practice of growing wheat for his family. Even though it was admitted that the wheat Wickard grew for his family never left the farm, the Department of Agriculture claimed that this practice affected interstate commerce

. If Wickard had not given this wheat to his wife, the government argued, it might have traveled across a state line and could have affected interstate commerce. Further, the government argued, if Wickard had not given farm-grown wheat to his wife to feed the family, his wife would have bought bread at the store – bread that might have crossed a state line and might have affected interstate commerce.

Thus, the government argued, Congress had sufficient constitutional authority under the commerce clause to impose the wheat quotas on Wickard and prohibit him from growing extra wheat to feed his family.

When presented with this argument and the Roosevelt threat to expand and pack the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the government’s arguments in Wickard, thereby dramatically expanding the power of Congress to “regulate commerce … among the states.”

Since the New Deal, a large proportion of laws enacted by Congress are theoretically founded on commerce clause power.... firearmsfreedomact.com...


Ron Paul understood the basis for the commerce clause was a coerced Supreme Court ruling. A ruling that has ruined this country and allowed a bloated corrupt government to form. THAT and not racism is the basis for his not being FOR the civil rights laws.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


See you are thinking so close minded.
They should not have the right to discriminate? Why not because they sell things? What if they sold their products from their homes? Then? What if we just talked about their homes in general. It is their store not a public place. THINK. It is not a public place. He is saying that because he is right. If we got rid of it today and people started throwing up "No Blacks" signs they would be run out of town. I say let them discriminate so they ruin their own businesses. Store owners only did that # because the majority of their customers felt that way and they were afraid they would stop coming to integrated stores.. it sure the hell wasn't because they didn't want black peoples money. Think.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977
reply to post by Wooliebear
 


You did not answer my question as to what liberties have been surrendered to the Civil Rights Act. I am looking for a specific and direct answer to that question and that question only for the time being. I am really having a hard time wrapping my brain around this one.




TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION


SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:


(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;


(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;


(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and


(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.


(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.


(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.


(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).


SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.


SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.


(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.


(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.


(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.


SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.


SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.


(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.


In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.


It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.


SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.


(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.


www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov...

The right of the owner of a business of the type in Title II Sec. 201 loses the right to decide who they will allow on their personal property. Good for equal rights, but unfortunately that is a liberty lost, and goes against our country's constitutional values.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by deesul69
 


Thanks you.

People on this website are half ignorant, they jump to conclusions because they want to take a stance before they have a cause.

Ron saying I wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act IS NOT Ron Paul saying he wouldn't have voted for civil rights. Ideas like that don't compute with people like OP.

Ironically now OP probably won't vote for him because although she was wrong in her stance about him, she is soured because his supporters called her out on her poor judgement. America...
edit on 16-5-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)







 
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join