Atlantis Online
September 21, 2020, 08:06:26 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ruins of 7,000-year-old city found in Egypt oasis
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

A good analysis of Ron Paul's racism

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: A good analysis of Ron Paul's racism  (Read 48 times)
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
Posts: 1370

« on: February 06, 2012, 03:59:39 am »

Ron Paul's Position: Against Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Against Segregation Laws

by Professor Will Huhn on May 14, 2011

in Commerce Clause,Constitutional Law,Wilson Huhn

Ron Paul announced yesterday that he would have voted against the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that he would voted against state laws requiring segregation of the races.  Consistent with his libertarian principles, Paul elevates property rights to a preferred position under the Constitution.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stirred a controversy yesterday.  According to Michael O'Brien of The Hill, Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In an interview with Chris Mathews of MSNBC, Paul disclosed that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended racial discrimination in private businesses.  Under that law businesses that are open to the public may not discriminate against their customers on the basis of race, and businesses whatever their nature may not engage in employment discrimination.
Paul claims and no doubt believes that this does not make him a "racist" and he is quick to claim victimhood if anyone criticizes his position "You are calling me a racist!" is his ready response to those who disagree with him.  He maintains that he is not in favor of racial discrimination he is instead merely in favor of property rights.  He believes that under the Constitution the government may not interfere with the way that a person or a corporation operates its business even if it is engaging in acts of racial discrimination.
Here is the problem.  Life requires us to make choices.  A person cannot simply choose to be in favor of one value or principle without acknowledging that myriad other values and principles will be affected by that choice.  Libertarian principles are often inescapably in conflict with egalitarian principles.  A person who stands foursquare for a person's or a corporation's liberty to discriminate on the basis of race, religion,  gender, or sexual orientation is to that extent opposed to the competing principles of equality on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul cannot escape this dilemma any more than any of us can.  The interpretation of the Constitution is constantly characterized by balancing a welter of fundamental American political and social values freedom versus security; federal power versus state sovereignty; the free flow of information versus the harm that may result from expression; the duty of the government not to promote or advance religion versus accommodation of religious practice; the protection of the rights of the accused versus the need for timely and accurate determinations of guilt or innocence; the duty of the commander-in-chief to defend this country versus Congress' prerogative to declare war and make rules for the governance of the armed forces; and, in this case, liberty versus equality.
I cannot find any logical inconsistency in Representative Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Moreover, his motives are purer than those of others who would cheerfully vote to repeal this law.
However, I do find his position to be intellectually weak and legally unpersuasive because of his failure to admit that there are competing constitutional principles at stake his failure to acknowledge that no constitutional principle is absolute his failure to perceive that "property rights" or "bodily integrity" or virtually any other constitutional principle must be weighed against other considerations.
In 1964 the Supreme Court quite properly determined that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to enact the civil rights law ending racial discrimination in employment and services by private businesses, and found that this statute does not violate any constitutional rights of propertyholders.  Mr. Paul is able to reach the contrary conclusion because he takes into account only one constitutional principle, only one side of the argument.  Ideologues and fundamentalists of any stripe find constitutional interpretation to be easy.  Only those who are willing to consider all sides of a question find it difficult.
Professor Huhn has taught Constitutional Law at the University of Akron for over a quarter century. You may access his websites on Constitutional Law and Health Care Financing Reform for additional materials and information about those subjects. Drafts of his scholarly work are available from his author page at ssrn:
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Superhero Member
Posts: 11110

« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2012, 03:45:21 pm »

There's a difference between public and private.

People can open up exclusive businesses now and discriminate against whoever they want.

Gay bars do it, lesbian bars do it, Bohemian Grove does it, hell even some feminists do it.

If a person makes a private club then they can pretty much exclude whoever they want.

I mean it is great we have laws against discrimination but it is like the weather, you have limits to what you can legislate.
Report Spam   Logged
Krista Davenport
Superhero Member
Posts: 5018

« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2012, 11:52:11 pm »

No, you don't, to the extent that they are exclusive, it is just that they haven't been sued yet! Look at all those women that military academies were forced to take in the 1980s and later.

In Ron Paul land, businesses would be allowed to continue to discriminate against black people with no legal means to redress their grievances.

But that's okay by the Paul supporters cause, hey, he supports legalizing pot and h*eroin!
Report Spam   Logged
Superhero Member
Posts: 11110

« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2012, 12:34:10 pm »

The thing is if they are public institutions then yes Ron Paul would support a legal redress of discrimination.  However if they are private he probably wouldn't support a redress of discrimination.  Like the Black-Panthers and the Bohemian Grove can allow who they want in their clubs cuz they are private clubs.  Now if they ever do anything for the public good then they will be subject to anti-discrimination laws.

The NOW can not allow men in if they choose, but if a woman's gym is the only gym in a 50 mile area and a man wants to use it, then as a public business they have to make exceptions.
Same thing with schools if a woman wants to play hockey and there's no girls team, then the mens team has to accept them.

It comes down to a difference bwtween public and private.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy