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

Yes racism is wrong and hiring because of race is wrong. But hiring BECAUSE of race is wrong also.
The job should go to the most qualified whether he be black, white, Asian or whatever.

The problem with the law and is that it tries to legislate morality and that never works.

An example.........
You can pass laws allowing black people the same rights as everybody else but you can't pass a law making it illegal to be racist.

You can't change how people were raised & how they think by passing a law saying it's wrong.

You can only educate and show them another way to do things.

If the laws were never passed, sure it would be legal for a business owner to not hire someone because he was black BUT if you changed public opinion so PEOPLE were not racist and saw the procedure as wrong there would be public backlash against such a store owner using such practices and he would go out of business.

Usually when you tell people that they are wrong and can't do that by passing a law they only want to do it more and revolt against it.

I wonder if the laws weren't passed back then for people "forced" through legislation to not be racist, what the world would be like today. People probably wouldn't have fought it so hard because the government wasn't the one telling them they HAD to change. Events may have unfolded where there really wouldn't be racism today or at least far less.

You can never tell people how to feel. You can only try to enlighten them. Laws don't do that.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Misoir

 

I just don't think that this concept will work out that smoothly.

I don't have enough faith in others to do it.

For that reason, the government usually steps in.

The government creates the problems only so they can be the one with the solution.

Anything the government gets involved with either fails or is beyond what the government should be involved in.

Take "Affirmative action" it was put in place to GIVE jobs to minorities even if they weren't qualified in that position. Myself for example took a civil service exam in the early 90's and was in the top 5% for this exam plus had experience as an MP in the Army. A co-worker of mine (security guard) took the same exam scoring just above 50% and he went right to the academy and yes he was black.

This also falls into the same category of teacher unions policy of "last in first out" when lay-offs happen. It only creates a less qualified work force because the government said you have to.

This is pathetic sidetracking and a veiled cry for continued big government intervention. I think America is ready to sit at the big kids table, thanks.

Just goes to show how ignorant and primitive this country still is when grown human beings are still caught up on the skin color of another human being. in my opinion,anyone with a race issue has a mental issue plain and simple.

grow the # up

I'm actually glad someone brought this up...this is an interesting stance that Ron Paul supports. Being hispanic and all, I have always believed Ron Paul is the most qualified candidate for Presidency, but I'm not exactly sure why he thinks the Civil Rights Act is unncessary. Isn't it thanks to the Civil Rights Act that businesses are also unable to discriminate based, not just on race, but also gender?

I can't say I share the same belief that most Americans would refuse to discriminate against people based on race and gender if the Civil Rights Act were not in place. I would be concerned that certain groups may actually begin to see some of their basic rights stripped away if we did away with it completley.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

en.wikipedia.org...

It also protects their voting rights.

Hmm...I'm not sure I'm understanding as to why Ron Paul would be against this. And I know it's something that will be brought up again and again in his campaign.

I do think Ron Paul has a common-sense grasp on much our economic problems, but his stance on this bothers me.

I suggest people read through the Civil Rights Act themselves....I've yet to see something wrong with it.

www.ronpaul.com...

In this short statement Dr Paul explains the rational for declining to support the 1964 Act;

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul:

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

www.ronpaul.com...

I have to agree with Ron Paul and Martin Luther KIng Jr that it is just to evaluate persons based solely on their character and not skin color. Affirmative action judges a person on the basis of skin color and thus promotes racism. Yes- racism is wrong but so was the federal government's answer to it.

Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

reply to post by Quadrivium


If you're going to use that to bash Democrats, then you need to understand that the Democratic party back then wasn't anything like it is now.

Yes, the Republican party was tolerant and all that until it was hijacked by Southern Democrats that were driven out.

reply to post by laiguana


I don't understand it either but most have been civil in their discussion of it.

I'm a lightning rod for controversy.

If Ron Paul truly wants to be elected, then this is the kind of stance that will not help him get the votes he needs.

With all of the issues facing this nation, this is what people choose to pay attention to? Nevermind his foreign policy, his economic strategies, or his stance on personal freedom...Let's concentrate on a 50+ year-old act that has absolutely no bearing on modern day law socially acceptable practices. Did Ron Paul say he would repeal civil rights? Of course not, and it's silly to even bring that up in this day and age.

Like Dr. Paul stated, the "Jim Crow" laws were voted on and made legal by the states were in violation of the same civil liberties that Ron Paul is trying to defend for all of us.

And as for the modern day relevance of this stance (which has no importance at all) if people were stupid enough to put up a "White's Only" sign on their business in 2011 they would quickly go out of business. We don't need the government to tell us not to discriminate in this day and age, people vote with their wallets to prevent such ludicrous actions from ever transpiring.

It's 2011, why do we care about such a non-issue? I suppose if Ron Paul would vote no on a bill to requiring horses to be hitched to a hitching post upon dismounting the animal (yes, that law still exists), we would also have to worry about horses roaming the city streets unattended as well?

I believe standing up for personal freedom and entrusting the people to decide on what is right for themselves and their businesses, instead of the government telling them what they can and can't do, is a very sensible and constitutional concept. Rather than focusing on all of the nonsense laws and silly regulations we allow the government to police us on, and how changing them would allow us the freedom to decide on what is right for us, we debate antiquated laws and concepts that have no merit in today's society...

What a complete non-issue...It's pathetic.

Ron Paul 2012

reply to post by KINGOFPAIN


I think you're being pretty harsh here.

It's not race itself but rather Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that is being discussed here.

Of course, some Americans think that racism died out with the passage of this act. It hasn't and they're living in denial if they think that racism isn't still alive and well in America.

Instead of trying to sweep it under the rug or liken the concern of racism to mental illness or using the "race card", put on your thinking cap for once and come up with a productive point/counterpoint.

reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr


It's not much different from those who harp on and on about Obama's birth certificate.

Are those people allowed to waste time and resources over that?

If so, then I can call out Ron Paul any time I want.

reply to post by The Sword


in my opinion the democratic party is still the same as it ever was

they havent moved on from slavery they expanded it to cover every minority in this country.

free money just give us your vote.

if minorities started with holding their votes just see how long the democrats will care about them.

Ron IS NOT RACIST is Not. He is saying let's have less government that is all. He wants real freedom not government freedom. If you pay your house off it should be yours guess what it's not. Your still paying property tax on it and the government can take your house from you that was put into law in the bill back in the 60's and that is why he would not have voted for the law. Wake up people the government is buying you and your letting them once they set there agenda they will not help you any more and they are just playing on the stupidity of Americans to just sell out for money and that is what almost half of Americans are doing they give you wellfare and all the government assistance so you think they care about you guess what they don't.
Ron Paul has my vote

A smart businessman would look around him and see all these segregated businesses then say to himself, "I know how I can make some real money". So he removes the 'No minorities allowed' sign from his store. All the non-racist whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc... will all go to his store. He would soon have the largest customer base because the other idiots are segregating their business.

reply to post by Misoir


So why didn't this happen before the Civil Rights Act was enacted? Is this how things were before this law passed?

Or was the nation divided between white and black, segregated neighborhoods. This is how it would retun to.

Those were ugly days, and to even entertain the notion of returning to those days is an abomination.

reply to post by laiguana
I think the main thing with this issue is along the lines of his views on drugs, abortion, etc. (my assumption, here) - he sees no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved, so it should be a states' rights issue addressed by the people as it impacts the liberty of the business owners, etc. - remember, Ron is VERY libertarian.

I would *imagine* that if this were approached from the standpoint of a constitutional amendment, Paul would not oppose it as long as processes were followed accordingly and the amendment were rightly approved - and I would also like to hear his opinions on the other Civil Rights acts to see if undue attention is just drawn to this one as it's a property rights issues they know people can be riled up against Paul over.

Please keep in mind that this is very much a side issue for Paul as his attention is focused on much more pressing issues and I personally don't see many others paying the needed attention or offering viable solutions for them. I would consider it a non-issue and don't see Paul having the time or will to bother paying much mind to it during any limited time he might have in office, but the media loves to bring it up as is a hot-button point and there's not much else they can realistically fault him on.

I mean, how else do you attack a guy who's been married to one woman for about 55 years, shows a high degree of consistency, and has no real skeletons in his closet aside from a smallish number of some unattractive newsletters of questionable origin, context, and intent from - what, 30 years ago?

reply to post by The Sword


*sigh*

And do you want my opinion on the birthers? They also had much bigger fish to fry but got caught up on peripheral issues.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN

A smart businessman would look around him and see all these segregated businesses then say to himself, "I know how I can make some real money". So he removes the 'No minorities allowed' sign from his store. All the non-racist whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc... will all go to his store. He would soon have the largest customer base because the other idiots are segregating their business.

reply to post by Misoir

 

So why didn't this happen before the Civil Rights Act was enacted? Is this how things were before this law passed?

Or was the nation divided between white and black, segregated neighborhoods. This is how it would retun to.

Those were ugly days, and to even entertain the notion of returning to those days is an abomination.

You have a bleak opinion about your fellow Americans. Every dollar spent is a vote in local consumerism society. I do not know ONE person who would spend even a dollar in an establishment that even hinted at being racist. Such businesses wouldn't exist longer than a couple of months.

His position on the Civil Rights Act alone, isn't enough to NOT make me want to vote for him. I guess you could say I'm willing to risk it given the current circumstances.
But I certainly do not share his views on this issue. People discriminate all the time, whether they realize this or not. They discriminate others based on race, gender, age, religion (or lack thereof), income, etc...It's true that by making it illegal won't make it stop, nonetheless is there to protect the rights of said minorities.
It's part of human nature.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr

 

It's not much different from those who harp on and on about Obama's birth certificate.

Are those people allowed to waste time and resources over that?

If so, then I can call out Ron Paul any time I want.

Well, it is quite a bit different actually, for the fact that the Constitution requires a president to be a "Natural born citizen"...and if he is not qualified to take office of the presidency, then he should not be allowed to hold it. Also, if the birth certificate is fake and he has avoided telling people the truth, then he knowingly deceived the entire nation, which is also an impeachable offense. Much, much different from hypothesizing on the stance one would take on a 50+ year old piece of legislation that holds no bearing on the issues of today.

But as for the intent of your post, I actually agree with you...I believe it is much more important to focus on the policies that are ruining this country right now, rather than wasting our energy debating irrelevant topics. Rather than your birth certificate comparison, I would liken this to how the media made a big deal over rapper Common visiting the White House. That was stupid...and it was a complete non-issue, just like this big hubbub over implied meanings to Paul's stance on an issue more than a century old.

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.

I think you might be a little misled here. For one thing, if businesses didn't hire anyone, and only served half the population, they'd go out of business. Which is a good thing, unless you want to keep racist crap-sacks in the food service industry.

Secondly, Segregation was mandated by law. Ever hear of Jim Crow? It refers to a series of discriminatory laws. "segregation" was not something the market created.

The Fed's passage of the Civil Rights Act made it so Racist business owners could remain in business. Thus a black person may be inadvertently paying the bills for the grand wizard of the KKK, just because he bought a sandwich.

Makes no sense to me.