Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business

[Ned]

Here is a fascinating history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republican Everett Dirksen organized the Republicans to vote with Northern Democrats to break the filibuster by Southern Democrats.

"On June 10,1964, after an impassioned plea by Dirksen on behalf of the compromise bill, the Senate voted 71 to 29 to close off the civil rights filibuster. Every member of the Senate was present for the vote, including Senator Engle of California who had suffered a stroke and could not speak but pointed to his eye as a sign of his "aye" vote. The margin was four votes larger than the 67 required. It ended 57 days of debate, the longest debate since the cloture rule had been adopted in 1917. Forty four Democrats and 27 Republicans supported cloture; 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed it. "

Earlier in the piece, it shows that the Republicans in the House voted heavily in favor of the Act. It also shows that Republicans had always had a record, 96%, in supporting civil rights legislation since 1933 while the Democrats had an 80% record of opposing such legislation.

"Since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes. "

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html

[Ned]

Ramo, what was Lincoln's speech of a "House divided against itself cannot stand" speech all about? It certainly was not about slavery in the territories.

Also, the Republican Party has had always had a solid record on civil rights even though the black leadership is Democrat. That record has not changed despite the recent election in the South of Republicans to state office. As the historical record shows, Republicans supported civil rights legislation 96% of the time. Democrats opposed such legislation 80% of the time prior to 1964. That is when they switched, at least in the North, to supporting such legislation.

All you can say about the South is that they are still behind the rest of the country on these issues. This does not mean that the Republican Party as a whole is in favor of or responsible for segregation for 100 years! as was stated by Lawrence the liar.

[Ned]

Ramo, on today's issues, the answer is also yes. Republicans want to reform the Welfare laws to incent work and to promote families. Democrats are uniformly in opposition. Only by working and by forming families can the majority of blacks ever hope to break out of the cycle of poverty they are in.

Republicans, not Democrats, support vouchers. Only vouchers can hope to bring the poor black better education as the public school system in the ghetto is a complete failure.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thats a new low. Quoting Rush Limbaugh, the hypocrite druggy who didnt go to jail because he's rich and famous.

Lawrence of the Leftist Propaganda, do you truly believe that the civil war was fought over States Rights and that Lincoln was not steadfastly opposed to slavery but actually supported it?

The civil war was fought over states rights. As for what Lincoln thought, I cant say.

Hey Ned, try reading the 1964 Civil Rights acts.

Title IV Authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination.

Title III Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. AttorneyGeneral to file suits to force desegregation, but did not authorize busing as a means to overcome segregation based on residence.

Title II Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole. 

Title V Outlawed discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people and creates an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers

Maybe the reason why all those repugs supported this legislation is that it doesnt do anything. It 'encourages' desegregation, outlaws descrimination is business over 25 people (how about under 25? why can they still be descriminated against?)

The list goes on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It 'encourages' desegregation, outlaws descrimination is business over 25 people (how about under 25? why can they still be descriminated against?)

Funny that forced busing (a HORRIBLE idea, btw) came from that encouragment of desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education.

And why over 25 employees? Because they don't want to run into interstate commerce issues, and it just isn't feasible to require every small employer to follow every law, because it'd be total mess on the enforcement side. You'll notice that almost every requirement to private businesses applies only to those with over 20 (such as COBRA) or 25 or 30 employees.

exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole.

And also not violating the freedom of association of those groups.

creates an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers

*Looks at the EEOC*

Uh... yeah. No meaningful enforcement power, eh?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And also not violating the freedom of association of those groups.

So then why not define it? Because it wasnt meant to allow freedom of association.

And why over 25 employees? Because they don't want to run into interstate commerce issues, and it just isn't feasible to require every small employer to follow every law, because it'd be total mess on the enforcement side

So thats why we make it illegal to not wear your seatbelt because it is easy to enforce? Well its easy to enforce a law which prohibits chewing gum, but that doesnt mean we should pass it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So then why not define it? Because it wasnt meant to allow freedom of association.

They were taking it away for those groups involved in interstate commerce, but they could not justify taking away the freedom of association for those private clubs... and neither can I, frankly.

So thats why we make it illegal to not wear your seatbelt because it is easy to enforce? Well its easy to enforce a law which prohibits chewing gum, but that doesnt mean we should pass it.

Ease of enforcement must always be taken into account. Taxing the government or the courts is always a bad idea and while the government doesn't give a rats ass sometimes, thankfully once in a while they exclude very small businesses from certain regulations. Swamping the government while not increasing taxes (for more government workers) ain't exactly the best idea.

[Adam Smith]

Dan, HO, Imran, et al:

The passages I quoted are from the Code of Federal Regulations, not the original law. The original law, the Federal Railroad Safety Act, incorporates these standards by reference. The Federal Railroad Safety Act says someting to the effect that "Mechanical standards shall consist of the AAR Interchange Rules dated [x], and amended by the Federal Railroad Administration dated [y]." So if you want to change the standards, you have to change the Act itself.

[DanS]

Hmmm... Go figure. That doesn't seem like the way to do regs.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

They were taking it away for those groups involved in interstate commerce, but they could not justify taking away the freedom of association for those private clubs... and neither can I, frankly.

And by not defining you allow other groups to say they are private thus smearing true private groups from freedom of assosication.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


Which hasn't come into play in Dean's campaign yet.

So what. It is there for the general election. They still make you do that to become President. Can't just do a primary and get skip over...

[Imran Siddiqui]

And by not defining you allow other groups to say they are private thus smearing true private groups from freedom of assosication.

What are you INSANE?! You want Congress to define every little thing? What is the court system for?

It doesn't matter if a group claims they are private, the courts will decide if they are or not.