How would you replace the Civil Rights Act?

I don't know if this is in the CRA but I would abolish Affirmative Action and the concept of hate crimes.
I'm not sure that forced private integration is necessary or beneficial anymore either.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard
The Ugly One said:
The only reason Indians operate convenience stores is they get special low-interest loans from the government subsidized by whites as a reward for being dark-skinned. This allowed them to undercut white-owned convenience stores (and hotels) and run us out of the market. There is zero valid reason for them to be here.
Click to expand...
Where can I find more details on this?
 
EleventySeven said:
since the document isn't divinely inspired
Click to expand...
i believe the Constitution is a divinely inspired document that reflects the natural rights of man.

what this means.
the founders drew inspiration from their faith during its creation.

what this does not mean.
god revealed something to them or worked through them.

after all:
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
Click to expand...


EleventySeven said:
every right and assumption should be applied only to White people. This was so fundamental an assumption, like the purpose of the second amendment, that it need not be stated although it was in other, less fundamental documents.
Click to expand...

i disagree, Alexander Hamilton said:
"Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things"
Click to expand...

the implication here is that the CRA was unnecessary. our views on race changed. with or without the passage of legislation, it changed. the CRA in some aspects was constitutionally valid, and it others it wasnt.

circle back to the freedom of association argument it trampled on in articles ii and vii.


i am an Alexander Hamilton fan.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard and EleventySeven
Vindeo said:
the implication here is that the CRA was unnecessary. our views on race changed. with or without the passage of legislation, it changed. the CRA in some aspects was constitutionally valid, and it others it wasnt.
Click to expand...
Our views on race changed in discord with the natural and obvious state of man. It was not even in consideration for the writers of the constitution that the negro be allowed to endowed with these rights. For a long time, such a view was the understanding of the constitution, hence the Dred Scott decision explicitly ruling that the constitution did not confer rights to non-whites and the idea of the 13-15th amendments being necessary to do away with the racial nature of the constitution.

But I will agree, the founders across the board understood that the constitution would require change over time. I prefer Jefferson's allegory about a child-sized coat to Hamilton just for the implicit interpretation of the constitution not as a set of provisions and guideline freedoms but a set of shackles on government. But I would disagree that our views on race changing means anything without those three amendments. Otherwise, it is an attempt to sidestep the constitution entirely by reinterpretation. As well, in an ideal world, the 13-15th amendments would be reexamined for their legitimacy given the circumstances of their approval and lacking quite a few states whom the federal government never officially regarded as seceded. Still, I will concede that you are right about the CRA being in line with the constitution's views on race at the time it was introduced.

Of course, all of this is merely arguing constitutional law and not the ought. The founders were absolutely correct in their assumption that the non-white races, at least those of consideration to the colonial Americans at the time, were largely incapable and incompatible with the freedoms assumed in it. Our views on race were altered by centuries of socially liberal ideologues and capital concerns with little to no consideration or connection to the larger societal impacts of such alteration. It came down from on high rather than naturally and to nearly every other race, save perhaps for some groups of east asians, the racial division of man is essential and obvious. And the only thing that the white race or its constituent societies can gain from fighting this observation is death at the hands of those who will not. Of course, in the meantime, a few people will make a hell of a lot of money, and some white liberals will pretend to feel good about themselves inside their gated communities.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard and Vindeo
The Ugly One said:
I'd have to Google it, because I learned about it in a MSM article that was portraying this as a good thing. Most people have no idea that the federal government had a special non-whites-only small business loan program.
Click to expand...
I'll accept it. Googling it mostly brought up people saying it's a Right-wing xenophobic myth, but if you actually saw it in their own media, then yeah...
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
I'll accept it. Googling it mostly brought up people saying it's a Right-wing xenophobic myth, but if you actually saw it in their own media, then yeah...
Click to expand...
Yeah it had a title like "How Indians Rose To Success in Hospitality," came down to the federal racial spoils system and ethnic nepotism. The first is denied to whites, and the second will get you sued.

FOTB pajeets get access to all this shit:
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard and Ughubughughughughughghlug
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back