Article Image

IPFS News Link • American History

The 1964 Civil Rights Act Destroyed the 14th Amendment and Resurrected Status-Based Law

•, By Paul Craig Roberts

Today in the US and Great Britain race distinctions determine rights, with "people of color" having higher rights than white citizens who have been reduced to second class legal status based on skin color.

Alfred W. Blumrosen, Compliance Chief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, made white Americans second-class citizens when in defiance of the statutory language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution he established a system of racial privileges for black Americans in university admissions, employment and promotion.  The system of racial privileges Blumrosen established forced universities to admit black students ahead of more qualified whites and forced employers to hire and promote blacks ahead of more qualified whites.  Blumrosen's system of disparate rights in violation of the 14th Amendment was hidden under the term "affirmative action."  (See The New Color Line, 1995.)

Universities, employers, and the judicial system complied with Blumrosen's illegal and unconstitutional dictate for 58 years.  After more than a half century of holding back more qualified whites in order to give racial preference to less qualified blacks, on June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court banned race-based admission privileges for blacks, but as Heather Mac Donald wrote in The City Journal the Court's ruling left open ways around the prohibition.

Indeed, as Renu Mukherjee reports in the Autumn 2023 issue of The City Journal, the Supreme Court's ruling is being vacated by the abolishment of objective merit-based standards in school admissions by both universities and elite high schools.  Racial preferences are used indirectly through such schemes as an Economic Need Index and poverty rates that guarantee a certain portion of admissions to those in these categories.  These schemes are called "race-neutral" although they have a disproportionate effect on unfavored races.   Mukherjee explains the schemes in The City Journal.  

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

Are you a man/woman? Or are you part of a contract that might be illegal if questioned the right way? The things of the Constitution and Amendments are a contract of government with itself. They aren't with you. And all the laws flow out of the Constitution and Amendments. You are not subject to them except that you want to be, and then carry out your wishes by contracting with them. But you need to tell government people this at the time they ask or assume. | For example. The drivers license might be an agreement between you and government. But when did you agree that government can use the drivers license for identification purposes in things outside of driving? Doesn't such usage come about on an instance by instance basis? If there is a 'non-driving' time that you don't want to be identified by the drivers license, state such, at that time. Same with all laws. They don't automatically pertain to you except that you are named, and have signed in agreement.

Home Grown Food