Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Jarod]

There is nothing in the CRA of 1875 or 1866 about "segregation" or "desegregation" ...those arguments were not made in the legislation. There was no "ban of segregation" and only an absolute brain-dead moronic idiot would think that to be the case, given the fact that black people certainly were segregated after 1866 and 1875.

Thats kinda like saying:

"The First Amendment doesn't even mention the government. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the government can or can't do...."


Here is the important part of Text from the CRA of 1875:

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,


Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

 

[Jarod]

Then by your logic, it is patently unconstitutional to deny inmates the right to own a firearm! They are "persons" and they are certainly "within the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Except that inmates have had due process, and as a result of that due process had their rights taken away!

 

[Jarod]

No, he is making the argument that "any person" means literally that, and if this is the case, inmates should have the constitutional right to bear arms. He hasn't proven anything I've said wrong and neither have you. You've both proven what simple-minded morons you are, and I congratulate you on that accomplishment!


You are both trying to argue that the US outlawed segregation in 1875, and that just isn't the case. Nothing was mentioned about "segregation" in the 1875 legislation, nor was it stipulated that society be "desegregated." When one of you idiots points this out to me, I will admit I am wrong, but so far.... *crickets*

The government cannot infringe upon the rights of "any person" until he or she has had "due process".

Geesh, you are so ignorant about our nation and our laws.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Except that inmates have had due process, and as a result of that due process had their rights taken away!

So now you admit that "any person" has some caveats, and it doesn't just mean literally "any person regardless of circumstance." I'm so glad you were able to refute your own idiotic point, I think that helps you to learn better than when I refute your idiotic points myself.

People who are in this country illegally, have broken the law. If they have a visa, and they break our laws, they have violated the terms of the visa, and are subject to arrest and deportation. People who perpetrate an 'act of war' against our nation, have violated the law, and are subject to punishment because of it.

To my knowledge, no one has argued that the undie bomber should be denied due process... no one has argued that KSM should be denied due process! The only argument has been whether the 'due process' comes from a civilian court or a military tribunal.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thats kinda like saying:

"The First Amendment doesn't even mention the government. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the government can or can't do...."


Here is the important part of Text from the CRA of 1875:

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,


Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

Well, I am sorry, but I still am not seeing the part about outlawing segregation! Can you please highlight that portion for me, because I must be missing where it says that? I've read it over and over about a dozen times, and it just doesn't say anything at all about 'segregation' or 'desegregation' and that IS what you claimed. So, it's up to you to show me where it says what you claimed. I'll be waiting!

 

[Jarod]

So now you admit that "any person" has some caveats, and it doesn't just mean literally "any person regardless of circumstance." I'm so glad you were able to refute your own idiotic point, I think that helps you to learn better than when I refute your idiotic points myself.

People who are in this country illegally, have broken the law. If they have a visa, and they break our laws, they have violated the terms of the visa, and are subject to arrest and deportation. People who perpetrate an 'act of war' against our nation, have violated the law, and are subject to punishment because of it.

To my knowledge, no one has argued that the undie bomber should be denied due process... no one has argued that KSM should be denied due process! The only argument has been whether the 'due process' comes from a civilian court or a military tribunal.

No, "any person" has these rights and before the government can take them from "any person" they must have a due process hearing.

Its what limited government is all about!

 

[Jarod]

Well, I am sorry, but I still am not seeing the part about outlawing segregation! Can you please highlight that portion for me, because I must be missing where it says that? I've read it over and over about a dozen times, and it just doesn't say anything at all about 'segregation' or 'desegregation' and that IS what you claimed. So, it's up to you to show me where it says what you claimed. I'll be waiting!

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,


Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.



Maybe you dont know what seggreation is, but that is a law prohibiting it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, "any person" has these rights and before the government can take them from "any person" they must have a due process hearing.

Its what limited government is all about!

Well that is just not so. Sorry.

If a suspect is firing at police and they kill him, they have denied him his basic right to life without due process. Your interpretation of "any person" is too binding for practicality. However, because you lack basic common sense, you can't see this. I am trying to help you, but you just want to call me names and mock me.

 

[Jarod]

Well that is just not so. Sorry.

If a suspect is firing at police and they kill him, they have denied him his basic right to life without due process. Your interpretation of "any person" is too binding for practicality. However, because you lack basic common sense, you can't see this. I am trying to help you, but you just want to call me names and mock me.

Ugh, Dixie, that is called self defense and it is not the government intentionally killing someone, that is an individual protecting himself or others from immideate harm.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ugh, Dixie, that is called self defense and it is not the government intentionally killing someone, that is an individual protecting himself or others from immideate harm.

Of course it is! But this disproves your contention that government MUST give due process before taking a fundamental right. Another example is the life of the unborn. There are lots of examples where "any person" has some qualifier or caveat, it simply doesn't universally apply regardless of the situation.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,


Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.



Maybe you dont know what seggreation is, but that is a law prohibiting it!

I'm sorry, maybe you can highlight the specific part in red or something, I still don't see where it says one damn thing about "segregation" or "desegregation!" Seems to me, if the law you cited prohibits it, you should be able to show me where it says it prohibits it. I don't think that is asking too much. Now let's go! I don't have all day! Either point out where the act specifically forbids segregation or mandates desegregation, or just admit you were mistaken... simple as that!

 

[Jarod]

Of course it is! But this disproves your contention that government MUST give due process before taking a fundamental right. Another example is the life of the unborn. There are lots of examples where "any person" has some qualifier or caveat, it simply doesn't universally apply regardless of the situation.

Again that is not the governments intent when they go into any situation, but sometimes individuals, not the government must protect themselves. Still any person has a right not to be denied life or liberty without due process.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again that is not the governments intent when they go into any situation, but sometimes individuals, not the government must protect themselves. Still any person has a right not to be denied life or liberty without due process.

Individuals acting in a capacity representing government (law enforcement), can and do have the right to deny an individual life, liberty, and due process, if and when they have violated the law. So your contention that "any person regardless of circumstance" has any particular right, is not accurate. There are always exceptions, there are always caveats.

 

[Jarod]

Individuals acting in a capacity representing government (law enforcement), can and do have the right to deny an individual life, liberty, and due process, if and when they have violated the law. So your contention that "any person regardless of circumstance" has any particular right, is not accurate. There are always exceptions, there are always caveats.

Well you are correct that its a ballancing act. Much like common sense gun control is allowed and screaming fire in a crowded theater is not.

When others rights are going to be affected more so by allowing someone else rights then you get into a grey area.

I cant belive I am saying this, but on this narrow issue about exceptions existing, you are correct.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I cant belive I am saying this, but on this narrow issue about exceptions existing, you are correct.

...And the clouds part as golden light shone down on the Earth, and the angels deliver a heavenly harmony!

Thank you! [/THREAD]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here's the quote of the actual Act....Jarod didn't write it, unless he's immensely old. Note the bolden words:


Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

So your moronic blathering about Jarod alluding to criminals having guns is just that....moronic. See genius, there are other laws that deal with the rights of those who break the law....having guns isn't one of them. I've known that since grade school civics class....pity a student of history such as yourself doesn't quite grasp that.

You've already been schooled about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (you contend a civil rights act isn't about neutralizing segregation....get an adult to explain to you what "civil rights" are all about). So please spare us your lies, distortions, dodges and basic dishonesty...because quite frankly your insipid stubborness and proud ignorance/deceitfulness is getting old hat and taking up a lot of space....but it does cement your rep as a second rate white supremancist propagandists.

Wow Chicklet....(translation: he's got nothing, so this this childish insult is all he's got...pity his intellect is like the candy he's so fond of mentioning...of no real substance) in all that bold text I must be missing where it says segregation is outlawed or mandates any desegregation. Can you please post those words in red for me, so I can see them, because I'm missing that part. That's because your reading comprehension is abysmal, and coupled with your revisionist bent and insipid stubborness makes you just another white supremacist bullhorn. It's called comprehensive reading, genius....anyone who has that at an 8th grade level can read the bolden sentence, then remember the title of the act (Civil Rights), and then know that this act sure as hell is not geared to support segregation....or do you understand the definition of segregation in relation to American history? Or maybe you need big bold letters that state simple sentences like "THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IS NOT A FRIEND OF SEGREGATION....IT'S AGAINST IT!".

Oh, and I didn't say that Jarhead alluded to criminals having guns, nor did I say that I thought that was appropriate or authorized by the Constitution. Maybe you need to retake 3rd grade reading again? What I said was, by his interpretation, we would have to allow inmates to own a gun, it's their constitutional right. Says so right in the 2nd Amendment! A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Doesn't say inmates are excluded as people!

Since Jarod DID NOT make any insinuation, allude to, or suggest what you stated. YOU INTRODUCED THAT 'INTERPRETATION' BASED ON YOUR ERRONEOUS CONVOLUTED LOGIC. Seems you have a penchant for trying to treat any law as separate onto itself and immune to subsequent laws and amendments...which would explain your idiotic blatherings about the 2nd Amendment and criminals. Like I said earlier, YOU need to acquaint yourself with the Criminal Code laws, the Constitution and Bill of Rights...because cons and ex-cons are NOT allowed weapons to continue their illegal trade or to avoid prosecution....as breaking the law deprives them of certain rights (like freedom for certain periods of time..you know, jail.)

Sorry bunky, but you're not going to bullshit and dodge here...the chronology of the posts won't let you. Bottom line: Jarod was on target regarding the Civil Rights Acts and what they were intended to do AS IT WAS SPELLED OUT IN THE EXCERPTS PROVIDED. Since YOU can't logically or factually disprove such, you're all over the place making illogical suppositions and conjectures...trying to substitute that for what has actually transpired. That makes you dishonest as well.
So blather on, my little wanna be David Duke ghost writer...as always you demonstrate that the only intellectually lightweight "chicklet" here is YOU.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Chicklet, I am sorry but I still am not seeing where the CRA of 1875 says anything about "segregation" or "desegregation." I thought I asked you to point that out to me? Can you not hear me boy?

I know a pretty good bit about criminal code laws, and the Constitution. You and Jarhead apparently don't. The 'criminals with guns' example was given to illustrate how Jarhead was incorrect in applying a universal standard to "any persons" and that the term actually DOES have some caveats and conditions. He admitted it after further consideration, but apparently you are too stupid to admit it. I certainly am aware of why criminals can't have guns, that is precisely why I gave that example.

Now.... back to CRA of 1875.... can you post the part which indicates it outlaws segregation or mandates desegregation? I am still waiting for this, and I don't have all day son. Let's get with it!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Well, seeing as how the term hadn't come into use yet, I'd be rather surprised if they wrote it into the CRA of 1875.

 

[Jarod]

Chicklet, I am sorry but I still am not seeing where the CRA of 1875 says anything about "segregation" or "desegregation." I thought I asked you to point that out to me? Can you not hear me boy?

I know a pretty good bit about criminal code laws, and the Constitution. You and Jarhead apparently don't. The 'criminals with guns' example was given to illustrate how Jarhead was incorrect in applying a universal standard to "any persons" and that the term actually DOES have some caveats and conditions. He admitted it after further consideration, but apparently you are too stupid to admit it. I certainly am aware of why criminals can't have guns, that is precisely why I gave that example.

Now.... back to CRA of 1875.... can you post the part which indicates it outlaws segregation or mandates desegregation? I am still waiting for this, and I don't have all day son. Let's get with it!

Ive done it, but Ill do it again....

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,


Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

 

[Jarod]

Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement;

If that is not a law providing for desegregation, I dont know what is!!!