Posted by: L | June 9, 2007

A black lib on white libs’ stance on the Civil Rights Act

From Booker Rising, a moderate-conservative black blog:

“Jim Crow violated the 1st Amendment (freedom of association, freedom of speech), 14th Amendment (equal protection) and 15th Amendment (voting rights). Jim Crow also empowered states to interfere with the rights of Southern whites who wanted to open their businesses, etc. to blacks. many tried to do so and met state and private repercussions. Is this not initiation of force by the state, abuse of power? Or is there an exemption when it happens to black folks? The Act, through the pre-existing interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution, enforced laws already on the books.

The arguments of many white libertarians rings quite hollow to those of us whose relatives actually experienced Jim Crow. Physical assault and violated private property rights (and local government wouldn’t enforce the law), and yet what do many white libertarians have to say here but “too bad”? Or did “states’ rights” override our families’ individual freedom and private property rights because of our race and because federal government didn’t do it?”

Will comment on this later. I think that what white libs defend might be what they consider overreaching (legally) in the Civil Rights Act, whereas black libs are looking at the reality of Jim Crow. There should have been a way to enforce the  laws (and stop the oppression)  in the states outside the commerce clause…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: