You are totally wrong. I am not “defending” anybody. I am attempting to explain their position. There is a difference — even if you don’t understand it.

Lastly, the persons who made the arguments I have only briefly summarized included constitutional scholars. It was not just some wackos in the JBS.

re: #106 sizzleRI

Great movie, great quote. In fact my law school orientation involved being shown many clips, including that one, from A Man For All Seasons. Its what happens if one chooses a Catholic law school, Sir Thomas Moore is a saint here. So I am fairly horrified that you are using this quote in a thread where you are defending the 1960’s objection to the CRA. Objecting to the CRA in the 1960’s is actually more morally horrifying to me than objecting now. In 2010 I think it is very difficult for people of my generation (I was born in 1983) to imagine a world in which African-Americans were routinely excluded. Some of us are blind to that pervasiveness of segregation and we think that would not happen today even without anti-discrimination laws. That our countrymen have moved past that. But we only think that Because of the effects of the CRA. How morally abhorrent to be living during the 1960’s and actually observe the evils of segregation and try to defend the practice on dubious Federalism grounds. And I do mean dubious because people like you seem to always leave out mention of Article VI.

Go read Article VI. Then read it again. Then maybe read some of the Supreme Court’s (you know, the people tasked with interpreting the Constitution) writings on the Supremacy Clause. Just because the JBS and other 10thers don’t like it doesn’t mean it is not there.