jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,903
I'm not posting this to argue over whether the CRA was good or bad or what should be the posture Rand Paul supporters take on "defending" his position on the CRA. (Hint. John Stossel is an idiot)[1] The simple fact is you need to know Rand's position, at least as it is now publicly being stated.
http://www.whas11.com/news/Rand-Paul-in-Shelbyville-to-celebrate-Civil-Rights-Act-265447091.html
And how to explain the apparent "change" in position? Well the civil rights act, as written, is flawed even from the standpoint of its stated aims. Did you know that a restaurant could technically bar blacks today in 2014 as long as all of the food and other supplies were purchased in state? The famous Ollie's BBQ case hinged out the fact that a substantial amount of food was bought out of state and thus the Court held that the federal government's regulation of private business via the interstate commerce clause in this case was valid. When Rand was being grilled by Rachel Madcow, he kept trying to bring up the commerce clause and she kept glossing over it either out of ignorance or dishonesty. So harmonizing Rand's two positions is a matter of saying that he was echoing some of the concerns raised by legal scholars, both liberal and conservative, about the arbitrary use of the commerce clause in the CRA (in fact some of the concurring justices in the Ollie's BBQ case stated that it should have been based on the 14th amendment instead of the commerce clause) but that he is happy with the ultimate outcome which is that now in 2014 segregated lunch counters are unthinkable. Of course most libertarians find segregated lunch counters unthinkable, they would just rather get their without government coercion.
[1] Telling blacks "Well would you want to be forced to let the KKK into your store" is retarded. For one the CRA doesn't cover membership in private groups. A white store owner is perfectly fine to block members of the Black Panthers or even the NAACP from his store as long as it's based on group membership and not race. For another, most blacks if they had to let a KKK member in their store in order to have legal protection that said a nearby hospital could not deny them admission based on race would just deal with the klansman.)
http://www.whas11.com/news/Rand-Paul-in-Shelbyville-to-celebrate-Civil-Rights-Act-265447091.html
And how to explain the apparent "change" in position? Well the civil rights act, as written, is flawed even from the standpoint of its stated aims. Did you know that a restaurant could technically bar blacks today in 2014 as long as all of the food and other supplies were purchased in state? The famous Ollie's BBQ case hinged out the fact that a substantial amount of food was bought out of state and thus the Court held that the federal government's regulation of private business via the interstate commerce clause in this case was valid. When Rand was being grilled by Rachel Madcow, he kept trying to bring up the commerce clause and she kept glossing over it either out of ignorance or dishonesty. So harmonizing Rand's two positions is a matter of saying that he was echoing some of the concerns raised by legal scholars, both liberal and conservative, about the arbitrary use of the commerce clause in the CRA (in fact some of the concurring justices in the Ollie's BBQ case stated that it should have been based on the 14th amendment instead of the commerce clause) but that he is happy with the ultimate outcome which is that now in 2014 segregated lunch counters are unthinkable. Of course most libertarians find segregated lunch counters unthinkable, they would just rather get their without government coercion.
[1] Telling blacks "Well would you want to be forced to let the KKK into your store" is retarded. For one the CRA doesn't cover membership in private groups. A white store owner is perfectly fine to block members of the Black Panthers or even the NAACP from his store as long as it's based on group membership and not race. For another, most blacks if they had to let a KKK member in their store in order to have legal protection that said a nearby hospital could not deny them admission based on race would just deal with the klansman.)
