Since the United States was founded 240 years ago no body of legislation has so denatured its culture, diminished its freedoms, and disrupted its society more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The intentions of the CRA were commendable but the results were lamentable. Its purpose was to eliminate racial prejudice and reinforce the belief that “all men are created equal,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
But clearly, the use of that oft-quoted phrase has been expanded far beyond that intended by the Founding Fathers. The original intent of the phrase meant equal before God and before the law. These qualities are essential in any free society.
To be equal before God means that all man stand shoulder-to-shoulder before God. It affirms the fact that whatever the accidents of birth and circumstance bestow do not make anyone of greater or lesser value to God.
To think otherwise is to create a cast system of untermenschens and untouchables In that way, dragons be.
To be equal before the law is equally essential. Whether aristocrat or peasant, rich or poor, justice must be meted out impartially. This instills confidence in the legal system and an orderly, law-abiding society for all.
In all other aspects, equality does not exist. Every human being is a one-of-a-kind being; he is singular among the entirety of the human race. He has a unique assortment of talents, abilities, interests, energy, and ambition, that enable him to fit into the complex web of society.
In a free society, it is the market place and the individual who determine this place. This system requires no laws, courts, coercion, judges, or bureaucrats. It follows the laws of economics as effortlessly as water flowing downhill.
But this system was thought by some to be terribly flawed. However, through the force of law--- Constitutional law---it could be rectified.
It's said that if you want to find castles in the clouds, look long enough and you will see them. They found their “castle” in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause. This clause was meant to facilitate trade among the states. But if you're an activist judge, then this can be tortured to become the foundation for the CRA of 1964.
It is now illegal to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, transgendership, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran status, and genetic information. Like Jack's beanstalk, the list just keeps on growing.
The DOJ can bring a lawsuit against any person or any business where discrimination is thought to be practiced. Overlooked in the bill's passage was its infringement on three basic rights: the freedom of association, the use of private property, and freedom of speech.
Freedom of association is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Yet it is implied since it is fundamental to stated rights such as the gathering of like minded persons in religious, political, or philosophical organizations or private clubs. Now, however, if such an organization is deemed by a judge or bureaucrat to be prejudicial, it is illegal.
On the other hand, the right of a property owner to use his property or his business as he sees fit is protected by common law, state law, and the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the CRA contravenes the business owner's right in hiring, terminations, and the racial/sexual composition of the business's staff. Every proprietor now has a not-so-silent partner: the government. The fed will tell him how his business should be run.
Last, but most important, is freedom of speech. It is guaranteed in the First Amendment but gutted by the CRA.
The CRA has fostered a form of self-censorship called political correctness. Offend the racial/sexual sensibilities of someone and one can be forced to take a course in sensitivity training, reminiscent of Mao's reeducation centers. Declining that he can be fired or sued.
PC, in turn, has spawned thought crimes otherwise known as hate crimes. If a crime is committed where a bureaucrat or a judge somehow divines that racial/sexual intolerance is involved, then the felony is compounded.
Now you decide: Has the CRA of 1964 been a failure or a success? Has the CRA corrupted our freedoms and fomented civil discontent, or has it caused freedom to flourish and race relations to be less fractious than they were 50 years ago?
Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins
New Milford, PA