3 ms·
Um, that was a unanimous decision where they indicated that the Commerce Clause extends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside
by jaybrendansmith 3y ago
Um, that was a unanimous decision where they indicated that the Commerce Clause extends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside a state. Essentially, the Court held the government could prevent the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause. Since the motel was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia, this showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power.
Please explain to me how is that political, given the Civil Rights Act?
- isykt 3y ago[dead]
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoIt was political because the federal government had not previously had the right to regulate businesses within a state. Only states could do that themselves. But gradually this overreach of the federal government has expanded and now they can essentially regulate anything because it could hypothetically tangentially affect commerce (see Gonzales v Raich). It is clear that the framers did not intend the interstate commerce clause to be used in this way, they intended for states to be able to regulate most things themselves (the so-called “police power”).
- jaybrendansmith 3y agoI guess since the federal government is allowed to prevent various forms of discrimination, including on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, this so-called overreach makes sense. And I suppose since one particular party wants to discriminate against those people, that makes it political? The older I get, the more I see States' Rights as a smokescreen that originally protected slavery, and is now used to block civil rights, health care, privacy rights, and environmental protection.