So you don’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 either?!?

I can’t believe we’ve debated this issue so many times and this little tidbit of information never came out…

the Constitutional basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the Commerce Clause

That it is furthers the argument that the commerce clause has been abused, and is used as a form of Congressional tyranny. Article five of the fourteenth amendment should be enough, to protect and promote the rights any citizen of this country is guaranteed.

One of the most recent examples of the push back against congressional tyranny using the commerce clause, is U.S vs. Lopez-1995, when the Supremes ruled the Gun Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional.

“If we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

For most of U.S. history, the courts stopped congresses attempts to circumvent our Constitution by using the commerce clause, until the 1940′s, and the push back has only begun since the 1990′s.
To me, a civil rights act based on the fourteenth would provide a better remedy, as it would apply to all citizens, in all public places that provide meals or accommodations, and would reduce litigation, obstructionist activities, and give dignity to every citizen.
There are those in congress who wish to use the commerce clause to ban or hinder the manufacture or sale of firearms, violating another valued right protected by the Constitution. It is a clause that violates the spirit of the Constitution, state’s rights, and individual rights.

As for your snarky assumptions about conservatives views on human or civil rights, you really are simple minded.
Liberals, like you, don’t care about the people actually effected by mistreatment, as long as they stay on the lefty plantation, believe all the empty promises, become enslaved on government hand outs, and vote donk. Liberals don’t want the poor or minorities to become self-reliant, because if they did, they would vote conservative.

Because over the course of the months that we’ve debated over who deserves credit for the passage of the bill it never occurred to me that you didn’t actually support the Act or its legal basis.

We don’t need to look at archived copies of the National Review to observe the reluctance of conservatives to protect civil rights: it’s on display at a blog near you.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How about the Commerce Clause?

The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Where does the Commerce Clause, despite it’s vast abuses and interpretations, get the authority to compel certain behaviors from our citizens?

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Clarence Thomas

Amen on that!

Unless you have an alternative history in which the Founders intended the Commerce Clause to be used to impel white store owners to serve customers they didn’t wish to.

Or perhaps your belief in Constitutional Originalism is simply a crutch you use to oppose legislation you don’t like.

Exclusive: Biden pays men in comparable positions in his office nearly twice as much as women.

So, it looks like it’s not just a Liberal perception. But a Liberal practice, too.

[Editor --- Is it possible then that some of his biggest opponents were then Democrats?]

But seriously, Kennedy, Johnson, Mansfield, Humphrey? Not so conservative though I’ll grant that Dirksen was.

And everyone knows that conservatives continue to ‘promote freedom and liberty’ of individuals to marry who they choose or to be paid fairly on the basis of their work not their gender.

[Editor --- I don't for a moment believe that women are paid less than men for the same work. I've been in some very "good 'ol boy" industries for most of my life --- the oil industry and the defense industry, and everywhere I've ever worked women and men were paid by merit regardless of their gender.

The myth that women today make less than men for the same work is just another lie perpetuated by Liberals to further divide people (their favorite hobby).]