Henry Vilas wrote:I brought up the Commerce Clause because the health care decision specifically mentioned it and from my read, the majority of justices want to narrow its use in setting federal policies. Again, the Commerce Clause was the overriding reason why public accomodation laws under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were ruled constitutional. State Rights advocates, such as libertarian Ron Paul want to roll back broad use of the Commerce Clause, in the name of liberty.
You accuse me of playing the race card for stating that. You are protesting too much.
So do you think black Americans are better off today because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Subjectively, I think the answer is "yes". Something needed to be done, some major political gesture, in 1964 and the CRA accomplished that.
But objectively. If we look at various quantitative measures of how blacks were doing before and after the CRA, was it good or bad?
Employment rates, income equality, infant mortality, welfare rates, illegitimacy, HS completion, College completion and a number of other indices were improving before 1964. Some fairly dramatically.
Many of these indices continued to improve after the CRA but at a slower rate. Some stopped improving and started getting worse.
It is not always easy to conclusively show direct cause and effect but there is certainly a relationship.
I am not saying that the CRA should be repealed. I am not even saying that it should not have been passed, although I am not as supportive of it now as I used to be.
I am saying that it brought a number of unintended (or perhaps intended?) negative consequences to black Americans.