Cocktailopskrifter, spiritus og lokale barer

Amerikanske senatorer kæmper mod Spud -diskrimination

Amerikanske senatorer kæmper mod Spud -diskrimination


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Mens den søde kartoffel almindeligvis er kendt som en nærende grøntsag, ser det ud til, at dens beige-farvede fætter har en dårlig rap på The Hill. I december 2009 skar USAs landbrugsministerium (USDA) hvide kartofler fra det særlige supplerende ernæringsprogram for kvinder, spædbørn og børn (WIC), hvilket gjorde det til den eneste ekskluderede friske frugt eller grønt. Nu står to senatorer-Susan Collins (R-ME) og Mark Udall (D-CO)-op for spud og anmoder om genoptagelse heraf.

Det WIC giver føderal finansiering til stater for at støtte lavindkomstgravide og postpartumkvinder samt spædbørn og børn op til fem år. Hjælpen kommer i form af supplerende fødevarer, henvisninger til sundhedsvæsenet og ernæringsuddannelse.

Det madpakke tilbydes i forbindelse med WIC har en bred vifte af kvalificerede fødevarer, fra morgenmadsprodukter og mælk til modermælkserstatninger og medicinske fødevarer, men hver kategori har et væld af begrænsninger. I mange tilfælde er de smarte, næringsbevidste krav, der er beregnet til at vejlede deltagernes sundhed. For eksempel skal der for 100 gram korn være mindst 28 milligram jern og ikke mere end 21,2 gram saccharose og andet sukker.

Bemærkningen om, at "enhver slags frisk eller skåret grøntsag" er berettiget "undtagen hvide kartofler", har imidlertid udløst politisk kontrovers om produkter. Ifølge senator Collins, “Kartoflen er en vidunderligt nærende mad, der er billig, let at transportere, har en lang opbevaringstid og kan bruges i en lang række opskrifter.”

Faktisk er den hvide kartoffel lav i kalorier (et medium indeholder kun 163), højt kaliumindhold, kolesterolfrit, fedtfrit, natriumfrit og fuld af fibre.

Så hvad er USDAs problem? Efter sigende var 2009 -reglen baseret på en 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans -rapport, der bruger data årtier gammel. Hvis Collins og Udalls ændringsforslag til gårdforslaget går igennem, vil misforståelsen om hvide kartoffels værdi effektivt blive moset, smurt og bragt til hvile.


Ændring af lige rettigheder godkendes af kongressen

WASHINGTON, 22. marts - Senatet vedtog i dag ligestillingsændringen og fuldførte dermed kongressens handlinger vedrørende ændringen, som ville forbyde forskelsbehandling på grund af sox ved enhver lov eller handling fra enhver regering - føderal, stat eller lokal.

Feministernes 49 -årige kamp for at få ændringen gennem kongressen sluttede klokken 16.38. da 84 -til -8 -afstemningen blev annonceret.

32 minutter senere blev Hawaii den første stat til at ratificere ændringen, da statens senat. og, Repræsentanternes Hus registrerede sin godkendelse kl. 12:10. Hawaiian standardtid (17:10 Eastern Standard time).

Senatsgallerierne, der var fyldt med kvinder i alle aldre og mere end et par stykker, mænd, for det meste unge, jublede og jublede med et par cowboy -råb på trods af, at de var blevet advaret på forhånd af 'Senator. William V. Roth Jr., republikaner i Delaware, der præsiderede, at sådanne demonstrationer ikke var tilladt.

Det næste og sidste trin, inden ændringen kan træde i kraft, er ratifikation af 37 flere stater, de tre fjerdedele, der kræves i forfatningen.

Præsidentens underskrift er ikke påkrævet.

Tillid til, at ratifikation ville blive opnået hurtigt, blev udtrykt af en række tilhængere af ændringen.

Senator Birch Bayh, demokrat i Indiana, der ledede senatets kamp for ændringen, sagde, at han troede, at det ville blive ratificeret "med forsendelse".

Til stede på senatsgulvet, da ændringen blev vedtaget, var repræsentant Martha W. Griffiths, demokrat i Michigan, som generelt får

Fortsættes på side 21, kolonne 3 største enkeltstående andel af kredit for vedtagelsen af ​​ændringen. For to år siden lykkedes det hende i en sjældent afprøvet parlamentarisk manøvre at bringe ændringen på salen uden godkendelse fra retsudvalget, som i årtier havde nægtet selv at afholde høringer om foranstaltningen.

Repræsentanterne Margaret M. Heckler, republikaner i Massachuetts og Bella S. Abzug, demokrat på Manhattan, så også fra senatets etage, da ændringen blev vedtaget - et privilegium, som husets medlemmer har.

Fru Griffiths sad ved skrivebordet på bagsiden, der normalt var besat af senator Edmund S. Muskie, demokrat i Maine, og beholdt sin personlige optælling af rollecall.

Muskie vendte tilbage fra sin kampagne i tide til navneopråbningen, ligesom senator Hubert H. Humphrey, demokrat i Minnesota. Begge havde savnet, hvad der generelt blev betragtet som centrale stemmer i går om ændringer i ændringsforslaget.

Men to andre demokratiske præsidentkandidater, selv om de var til stede i går, var fraværende i dag - senatorer George McGovern fra South Dakota og Henry M. Jackson fra Washington.

I dag har senatdebatten, som den har gjort fra begyndelsen, centreret sig om, hvad konsekvenserne af ændringen ville være.

Dens hovedmodstander, senator Sam J. Ervin Jr., demokrat i North Carolina, forudsagde mange frygtelige resultater. En række på syv ændringsforslag, han tilbød, var designet til at modvirke disse resultater.

Senatet stemte alle de foreslåede ændringer fra hr. Ervin ned. Det største antal stemmer, han fik til enhver foreslået ændring, var 17.

De otte, der stemte imod ligestillingsændringen, omfattede udover senator Ervin kun en anden. Demokrat, John C. Stennis fra Mississippi. De andre modstandere var Wallace F. Bennett fra Utah, Norris Cotton fra New Hampshire, Paul J. Fannin fra Arizona, Barry Goldwater fra Arizona og Clifford. P. Hansen fra Wyoming, alle republikanere og James L. Buckley fra ‘New York, Conservative -Republican.

Hvor lang tid det kan tage, før ændringen er ratificeret, var uklart. Senator Bayh angav, at han troede, det ville være to år. Selve ændringen tillader syv år at gå, før den dør, hvis den ikke er ratificeret.

Common Cause, organisationen med John W. Gardner i spidsen, der kalder sig en lobby for offentligheden, meddelte, at den straks ville komme i arbejde i de 26 stater, hvor lovgivere er i møde nu. Hvor lovgivere ikke er i møde, vil det begynde at organisere til ratifikation, sagde Common Cause.

Alle er enige om, at der sandsynligvis ville være behov for betydelige retssager, før alle virkningerne af ændringen var kendt. Følgende er dog nogle af de love og praksis, som ændringen forventede at ugyldiggøre:

Loven pålægger en kvindes ret større restriktioner end for en mand at købe eller sælge ejendom eller at drive virksomhed.

¶ Lovgivning, der fastsætter forskellige aldre, hvor mænd og kvinder opnår lovligt flertal eller har ret til at gifte sig eller blive berettiget til skatteunderstøttede pensionsordninger.

¶Differentielle optagelsesstandarder for drenge og piger i skatteunderstøttede uddannelsesinstitutioner og forskellige faciliteter og læreplaner - såsom idrætsprogrammer og butiksfaciliteter - en offentlig skole. q Lovene om forskellige fængselsstraffe efter køn for identiske lovovertrædelser.

¶Lovgiver automatisk fortrinsret til moderen i sager om forældremyndighed.

¶Lovgivning, der giver kvinder underholdsbidrag uden henvisning til behov og pålægger faderen børnebidrag, uanset de to forældres relative økonomiske situation.

¶ Forordninger, der nægter arbejdsløshedserstatninger til gravide, der stadig er i stand til og villige til at arbejde, og love, der behandler graviditet anderledes end enhver anden midlertidig fysisk handicap.

¶Militære regler, der sætter højere adgangskrav til kvindelige frivillige end til mænd.

Der er også generel enighed om, at ændringen ville kræve, at kvinder blev udarbejdet, hvis mænd var. Den centrale afstemning i senatet i går var over dette spørgsmål, og senator Ervin 's ændring for at forbyde udarbejdelse af kvinder blev besejret, 73 mod 18.

Ændringens hovedklausul er som følger:

"Lighed i rettigheder i henhold til loven må ikke nægtes eller forkortes af USA eller nogen stat på grund af køn. & Quot


Oprindelsen til asiatisk undertrykkelse: Guldfeber og gul fare

Da Gold Rush i Californien var i gang i 1848, flyttede mange amerikanere fra byerne i øst i håb om at slå det rige i Vesten. Men guldet tiltrak ikke bare amerikanere, der var også en tilstrømning af mennesker fra det kinesiske fastland. Så mange mennesker kom over, at kineserne på et tidspunkt udgjorde en tredjedel af hele Californiens befolkning. Og naturligvis var “native ” amerikanere ikke tilfredse med denne nye race af mennesker, der konkurrerede mod dem om rigdom.

Således blev Yellow Peril i USA født, ideen om, at den ȁgule mand ”-østasiater-er primitive og uciviliserede, og derfor bør behandles med en mindre status end “white man ”. Mens Yellow Peril eksisterede i generationer på forhånd, var denne massive immigration hovedkatalysatoren for dens fremkomst i staterne. Disse overbevisninger om de nyankomne, såvel som den implicitte fremmedhad mod dem, førte til, at asiatiske amerikanere blev kastet i andenrangs status.


Kom med os på den højre side af historien. Vi repræsenterer en styrke på over 3 millioner medlemmer og tilhængere, samlet af vores passion for at realisere et virkelig ligeværdigt samfund. Vores styrke afspejler hver enkelt persons personlige engagement i at hjælpe LGBTQ -samfundet på de måder, de kan, fra marcherende til donering til afstemning.

Se, hvad der sker i nærheden af ​​dig

Lær, hvad HRC gør for at kæmpe for ligestilling i dit samfund, og hvordan du kan blive involveret.


Nogle republikanere siger, at de slog deres kamp mod Bidens COVID-19-lovforslag. Men de har stadig retssager.

Præsident Biden, vicepræsident Kamala Harris og deres ægtefæller stormer USA for at promovere den amerikanske redningsplan på 1,9 billioner dollars, der blev godkendt med nul republikanske stemmer, men varetager høj offentlig godkendelse, selv blandt visse republikanske vælgere. & quot Konservative begynder at spørge: Har vi fejlet dette? & quot Politik rapporter. & quot Den overvældende stemning inden for det republikanske parti er, at vælgerne vil tænde $ 1,9 billioner regningen over tid. Men den vent-og-se-tilgang har forbløffet nogle GOP-belysninger, og som forventede en intens indsats for at angribe regningen.

"Vi blev slået på denne," fortalte en senat GOP -medhjælper Politik. Flere republikanere gav den tidligere præsident Donald Trump skylden direkte eller indirekte. En anden GOP -medhjælper fra Senatet sagde, at der ikke var ilt til at bekæmpe Biden's regning, fordi vi brugte den tidlige del af året på at håndtere oprørs- og rigsretssagen, og så sprang vi lige ind. & Quot

Angreb, der fokuserede på manglen på topartistemmer, løb ind i den brede topartistøtte blandt vælgere og statslige og lokale embedsmænd, der hilste de 350 milliarder dollars velkommen i lokal nødhjælp. Den & quotliberale ønskeliste & quot -afgift fik aldrig trækkraft, og beskyldningen om, at mange bestemmelser ikke havde noget at gøre med pandemien, ringede ikke til vælgerne.

De spredte republikanske angreb, som Demokraterne balloner i underskuddet, faldt fladt, blandt andet fordi & quotRepublikanere mistede troværdighed om dette spørgsmål i Trump -årene, især de første par år, hvor vi havde magten til at gøre noget ved det, & quot sagde GOP -konsulent Brendan Steinhauser. "Det var bare, at vi ikke engang talte om forbrug eller gæld eller underskud eller noget lignende." Og republikansk fokus på kulturkrigsspørgsmål og migranter, der krydser grænsen, er distraktioner fra regningen, ikke modsætninger.

Demokrater svedte ikke politikken og var ærligt talt aldrig, & quot Politik rapporter. Men 21 GOP -statsadvokater general tirsdag truede med at tage retslige skridt mod Biden -administrationen over en bestemmelse i ARP, der har til formål at forhindre stater i at bruge 350 milliarder dollars i lokal bistand til at opveje nye skattelettelser, Washington Post rapporter.

GOP -advokaterne spurgte finansminister Janet Yellen i et brev tirsdag for at præcisere, at staterne kan fortsætte med nogle af deres planer om at sænke skatterne og sige, at hvis det ikke er tilfældet, ville ARP repræsentere kongressens største invasion af statens suverænitet i vores republiks historie & quot, og de vil tage "passende passende handlinger."

Cherokees bekæmper dommerens afgørelse, der tillader rivaliserende Catawba -stamme at bygge NC casino

Catawba Indian Nation åbner midlertidigt spilanlæg i Kings Mountain.

Donald Trumps onlinetrafik er faldet massivt, da han kæmper for at vinde sit publikum tilbage efter at have været forbudt fra sociale netværk

Blogindlæg om den tidligere præsident ''er & quot

AdLæg en pose på dit bilspejl, når du rejser

Strålende bilrengøringshacks De lokale forhandlere ville ønske, at du ikke vidste det

Mejía slår grand slam i 12., Rays slog Blue Jays 9-7

Francisco Mejía slog et grand slam i 12. inning, og Tampa Bay Rays vandt deres ottende spil i træk ved at slå Toronto Blue Jays 9-7 fredag ​​aften. Efter at Jeremy Beasley (0-1) bevidst gik Joey Wendle for at indlæse baserne, kørte Mejía den næste bane over højre feltmur. "Det var et ret specielt øjeblik," sagde Tampa Bay -manager Kevin Cash.

Alle gange Bill Gates angiveligt engagerede sig i tvivlsom adfærd, før han og Melinda Gates annoncerede deres skilsmisse

Gates ' -adfærd over for kvindelige kolleger og bånd til Jeffrey Epstein har været udsat for granskning i kølvandet på hans verserende skilsmisse fra Melinda French Gates.

Apples administrerende direktør Tim Cook vidnede i Epic v. Apple -retssagen. Her er 4 vigtige takeaways.

Det var første gang, Tim Cook har taget stilling som administrerende direktør for Apple. Dommeren havde flere spørgsmål til ham om App Store's forretningsmodel.

Forældre forarget efter at Florida high school redigerede pigernes årbogsbilleder for at gøre tøjet mere konservativt

»Vores døtre til Bartram fortjener en undskyldning,« siger en mor

Sørgende far stævner, efter at politiet ledte efter stoffer i urner, der indeholdt aske af datter

Politiet i Springfield, Illinois fortalte Dartavius ​​Barnes, at de havde fundet meth eller ecstasy i hans bil. Det var hans datters rester

'Die Jew.' Jødisk familie, der besøgte det sydlige Florida, blev chikaneret, mens de gik i Bal Harbour

Da en jødisk familie, der besøgte South Florida fra New Jersey gik langs Collins Avenue i Bal Harbour tidligere på ugen, begyndte fire mænd i en SUV at kaste fornærmelser - og skrald - mod dem.

Jeg prøvede Burger King's nye stegte kyllingesandwicher og var chokeret over, at de kom fra en fastfoodkæde

Burger King annoncerede onsdag en ny serie stegt kyllingesandwich. Insider gennemgik tre versioner som en del af et presseforhåndsvisning.

Ashton Kutcher 's tvilling ville ikke være cerebral pares ansigt. ' Nu er han glad

Michael Kutcher, tvillingerne til skuespilleren Ashton Kutcher, åbnede op for & quotToday & quot om sin rejse med cerebral parese og hans forhold til sin bror.

Huskandidat Bouchard imprægneret pige, 14, da han var 18

Wyoming-statens senator Anthony Bouchard har afsløret, at han imprægnerede en 14-årig pige, han havde et forhold til, da han var 18. Den amerikanske huskandidat afslørede forholdet i en Facebook Live-video til sine tilhængere torsdag. "Så i bund og grund er det en historie, da jeg var ung, to teenagere, pige bliver gravid," sagde han i Facebook Live -videoen.

En dommer i Georgien vil tillade, at stemmesedler i Fulton County lukkes og undersøges for beviser for bedrageri

Dommer Brian Amero gik med til at åbne 145.000 fraværende stemmesedler fra Fulton County som led i en revision af valget i 2020.

Nyligt afslørede tekstbeskeder kaster lys over, hvordan Matt Gaetz 's wingman kunne bringe hans undergang

"Jeg ville ikke føle mig rigtig godt tilpas, hvis jeg var nogen, der havde begået en forbrydelse med" Joel Greenberg lige nu, sagde en tidligere FBI -agent til Insider.

Iran skød bevidst et fly fuld af passagerer ned i terrorhandling, fastslår canadisk dommer

Juryen skal beslutte, hvor meget Iran skal betale ofre i erstatning, men indsamlingen vil være udfordrende

Verdensmestre Hurd, Memmel eye store billede på US Classic

Morgan Hurd kan mærke, når presset kryber op på hende. Det eneste, den 19-årige Hurd ikke har gjort, er at lave et olympisk hold, et biprodukt af kalenderen mere end noget andet. Hurd så ud til at være på vej i marts sidste år, da hun vandt American Cup i det, der skulle være det første store skridt mod Tokyo -legene i 2020 efter en lejlighedsvis svær konkurrencesæson 2019.

Simone Biles spikede et hvælving så farligt, at ingen kvinde nogensinde har prøvet det i konkurrence

Selv efter at have opnået en bedrift, andre aldrig har turdet prøve, kritiserede Biles sig selv, fordi hun & quot blev lidt nervøs ved landingen. & Quot

Liz Cheneys primære udfordrer beskriver imprægnering af 14-årig pige som 18-årig som 'som historien om Romeo og Julie'

I det, han kaldte en "Romeo og Juliet-historie", afslørede "US House-kandidaten og Wyoming-statens senator Anthony Bouchard sent torsdag, at han havde et" forhold til og imprægneret en 14-årig pige, da han var 18, "rapporterer The Casper Star-Tribune om Fredag. Bouchard brød selv nyheden i en Facebook Live torsdag og forsøgte at få & quotahovedet af historien efter at have lært, at folk undersøgte den i modsætning til hans kandidatur, & quot skriver Star-Tribune. Senatoren er midt i at udfordre rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) Om hendes plads i huset, men siger, at han ikke tror på, at Cheneys team var med til at grave historien op, rapporterer Star-Tribune. & quotTo teenagere, pige bliver gravid, & quot, siger Bouchard i Facebook Live -videoen. "Du har hørt disse historier før. Hun var lidt yngre end mig, så det ligner historien om Romeo og Julie. & Quot Bouchard afslørede ikke pigens alder i Facebook Live -videoen, rapporterer Hill. Efterforskere har jagtet min familie i flere uger, og nu kommer de liberale falske nyheder med et hit om mine teenageår. Derfor undgår gode mennesker at stille op til posten. Jeg vandt ikke tilbage, Swamp! @RepLizCheney Bring det! https://t.co/gaVSm6MkZM - Anthony Bouchard til kongressen mod Cheney (@AnthonyBouchard) 21. maj 2021 siger Bouchard, at de to giftede sig i Florida, da han var 19, og hun var 15 år, og blev skilt tre år senere. I en alder af 20 begik den navngivne ekskone selvmord, rapporterer Star-Tribune. "Hun havde problemer i et andet forhold," tilføjede Bouchard i sin video. "Hendes far begik selvmord." Bouchards planer om at stille op til kontoret forbliver tilsyneladende upåvirket: & quot Jeg kommer til at blive i dette løb, & quot, sagde han til Star-Tribune. Efter at have annonceret sit kandidatur i januar, rapporterede Bouchard at rejse over $ 300.000 i årets første kvartal. Mere på The Casper Star-Tribune. Flere historier fra theweek.com Joe Manchin kalder stadig mere sandsynligt, at GOP -filibuster af 6. januar -kommission 'so nedslående ' Angelina Jolie står helt stille, ubeskyttet, dækket af bier til World Bee DayBiden -kompromis fremkalder kold modtagelse fra GOP -forhandlere

Ejer af AP -tårnet ødelagt i israelsk luftangreb i Gaza siger, at han ikke så beviser for Hamas i bygningen

EKSKLUSIV: Hamas havde ingen tilstedeværelse i Gaza -bygningen, der husede AP, siger dens ejer. Da de blev presset af Insider, var israelske embedsmænd uenige.

Marjorie Taylor Greene kalder Nancy Pelosi 'mentally ill ' og sammenligner husmaskeregler med Holocaust

Greene er en af ​​flere republikanske lovgivere, der åbent har trodset maskekravet på husets etage i denne uge.

Elon Musk lykønsker Ford med debuten med deres nye elektriske F-150 Lightning pickup

Et par dage efter, at Tesla CEO Elon Musk debuterede virksomhedens Cybertruck i november 2019, oplevede det 250.000 forudbestillinger.


Gem spudsene! Senatorer kæmper for at holde kartofler i skolefrokoster

En gruppe senatorer fra kartoffelproducerende stater arbejder på at hjælpe med at vende den "dårlige rap", som kartofler har modtaget i de seneste år, og for at redde skolefrokostprogrammet fra at forbyde eller alvorligt begrænse spuds i det nationale skolefrokostprogram.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine og Mark Udall, D-Colo., Har foreslået en ændring af lovforslaget til senatet om landbrugsbevillinger, der ville beskytte skolernes fleksibilitet i servering af sunde frugter og grøntsager i skolemorgenmad og frokostprogrammer.

Nye retningslinjer frigivet i januar fra det amerikanske landbrugsministerium ville reducere brugen af ​​kartofler, herunder hvide kartofler, i skolefrokoster til i alt en kop om ugen. Reglen ville også forbyde stivelsesholdige grøntsager helt fra skolemorgenmadsprogrammet fra og med næste år.

Senatorernes ændring ville forhindre USDA i at komme videre ved at begrænse mulighederne for lokale skoledistrikter, hvad Collins kalder en "vilkårlig begrænsning" af spuds. Collins siger, at dette ville svare til forskelsbehandling af en grøntsag med mere kalium end en banan, som er kolesterolfri, lav og fed og natrium og "kan serveres på utallige sunde måder."

Senatorerne argumenterer imod de betydelige omkostninger, som skoledistrikterne ville pådrage sig, hvis de ikke kunne bruge kartofler, som er billige i forhold til andre grøntsager, i skolemaden.

"Jeg har hørt fra skolefrokostudbydere i Colorado, at denne begrænsning ville resultere i betydelige udfordringer for madservering gennem øgede omkostninger, reduceret fleksibilitet og nedsat skolemaddeltagelse," siger Udall. ”På nogle områder kan øget fleksibilitet til at servere denne næringsrige og tilgængelige grøntsag faktisk hjælpe skolerne med at styre omkostninger, så de har råd til at købe andre dyrere grøntsager.

Collins 'kontor siger, at hun arbejder med landbrugssekretær Tom Vilsack for at tilskynde skolerne til at finde bedre måder at forberede kartoflen på, frem for at forbyde eller alvorligt begrænse den.

"USDA bør ikke begrænse deres tilgængelighed, men i stedet skulle opmuntre til deres sunde forberedelse," sagde Collins.


COVID-19-lovovertrædelse om hadforbrydelser for at bekæmpe asiatisk amerikansk diskrimination passerer senatet

Demokraterne presser på for lovgivning, der har til formål at bekæmpe hadforbrydelser mod asiatiske amerikanere og styrke rapportering om hadkriminalitet. USA I DAG

WASHINGTON-Senatet vedtog med overvældende todelt støtte til et lovforslag om hadforbrydelser for at imødegå en drastisk stigning i vold og diskrimination rettet mod asiatiske amerikanere under COVID-19-pandemien.

COVID-19-hatkriminalitetsloven rensede salen i en 94-1 afstemning torsdag. Det ville fremskynde justitsministeriets gennemgang af hadforbrydelser og ville udpege en embedsmand i afdelingen til at føre tilsyn med indsatsen.

Det vil også pålægge afdelingen at koordinere med lokale retshåndhævende grupper og samfundsbaserede organisationer for at lette og øge bevidstheden om hadkriminalitet, herunder etablering af et online hadkriminalitetsrapporteringssystem på flere sprog.

Lovgivningen, der nu leder til det demokratisk ledede hus, er et af de få lovforslag, der skal vedtage dette senat med støtte fra både republikanere og demokrater. Mange demokrater forventede en lovgivende kamp, ​​men republikanerne signalerede tidligt deres vilje til at gå på kompromis med lovgivningen, og senatorer fra begge parter har forhandlet i flere uger.

Den udvidede lovgivning, der ledes af senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, gennemgik flere topartsændringer inden den sidste passage.

Taler fra senatets etage torsdag, sagde Hirono, at ved at vedtage lovforslaget, "vil vi sende et stærkt budskab om solidaritet til AAPI-samfundet om, at senatet ikke vil være en tilskuer, da anti-asiatisk vold stiger i vores land." AAPI refererer til det asiatiske amerikanske og Pacific Islander -samfund.

Hatforbrydelser stiger mod farvesamfund. I 2019 nåede de deres højeste niveau i mere end et årti. Her er hvorfor. USA I DAG

Begge senatledere støttede lovforslaget.

"Afstemningen i dag om lovforslaget om anti-asiatiske hadforbrydelser er et bevis på, at når senatet får mulighed for at arbejde, kan senatet arbejde på at løse vigtige spørgsmål," sagde majoritetsleder Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., fra senatets etage forud for afstemningen.

Senator Minoritetsleder Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Sagde i sidste uge, at jeg som "stolt mand til en asiatisk amerikansk kvinde synes, at denne diskrimination mod asiatiske amerikanere er et reelt problem." McConnell er mand til Elaine Chao, den tidligere transport sekretær, der blev født i Taiwan.

En ændring af lovforslaget fra senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, med støtte fra Hirono, hjalp med at mægle og "udvide støtten" til lovgivningen ved at justere lovforslagets sprog i referencer til "COVID-19 hadforbrydelser."

Justeringen hjalp med at rulle GOP -support op. Republikanerne havde udtrykt bekymring for, at den første tekst var for snæver til at definere typerne af hadforbrydelser.

Ændringen ville også få justitsministeriet til at udstede vejledning "med det formål at øge bevidstheden om hadforbrydelser under COVID-19-pandemien."

Lovforslaget vil fremskynde gennemgangen af ​​hadforbrydelser midt i en stigning i hændelser mod det asiatiske amerikanske samfund. USA I DAG

En anden tilføjelse til regningen fra Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Og Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Ville etablere tilskud til at hjælpe lokale og statslige regeringer med at tilskynde til mere uddannelse i hadforbrydelser til retshåndhævelse, etablere hatkriminalitet hotlines og give mulighed for en "rehabiliterings" indsats for gerningsmænd til hadforbrydelser.

Lovforslaget mangler stadig at passere Parlamentet for at nå det til præsident Joe Bidens skrivebord. Det skulle drøftes i husets retsudvalg tirsdag, men dets formand, rep. Jerry Nadler, DN.Y., udsatte den diskussion, indtil senatet stemte, hvilket betyder, at lovgivningen usandsynligt vil gå til fuld stemme om kl. mindst et par uger.

”Adressering af AAPI -hadforbrydelser er fortsat en topprioritet for husdemokraterne. Vi overvåger senatforhandlingerne nøje, og vi vil snart tage affære i dette spørgsmål, ”sagde House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

I mere end et år er rapporter om hadhændelser mod asiatiske amerikanere steget.

Stop AAPI Hate, en fortalergruppe, der sporer hadhændelser, sagde, at den havde modtaget næsten 3.800 rapporter om hadhændelser i hele landet siden marts 2020, sammenlignet med cirka 100 hændelser årligt i de foregående år. Det spores 987 i de første to måneder af 2021.

Efter sidste måneds masseskydning i Georgien, der dræbte otte mennesker - heraf seks kvinder af asiatisk afstamning - pressede lovgivere i begge kongresskamre på for at fremskynde lovgivningen og opfordrede til hurtige handlinger.

En anden ændring af lovgivningen som led i samtaler med senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Omfatter tilføjelse af navnene på de otte dræbte.

Asiatiske amerikanske lovgivere havde indført anti-had lovgivning i den sidste kongres, men bortset fra, at Parlamentet vedtog en ikke-bindende beslutning, der fordømte anti-asiatisk bigotry og diskrimination under COVID-19-pandemien, blev ingen lovgivning underskrevet.

Rep. Grace Meng, DN.Y., medforfatter til lovgivningen, sagde på et stævne med Schumer mandag, at "vi endelig tager affære i kongressen" efter et års forskelsbehandling, der har gjort mange i AAPI-samfundet bange at bruge offentlig transport eller endda forlade deres hjem.

Lovgivningen støttes af Biden og Det Hvide Hus. Præsidenten sagde i marts: "Det er på tide, at kongressen kodificerer og udvider disse handlinger - fordi enhver person i vores nation fortjener at leve deres liv med sikkerhed, værdighed og respekt."


Indhold

Genopbygning og New Deal æra Rediger

I vartegnet 1883 Sager om borgerlige rettigheder, havde USA's højesteret fastslået, at kongressen ikke havde magt til at forbyde forskelsbehandling i den private sektor, og dermed fratog borgerrettighedsloven fra 1875 en stor del af dens evne til at beskytte borgerrettigheder. [7]

I slutningen af ​​det 19. og begyndelsen af ​​det 20. århundrede var den juridiske begrundelse for at annullere borgerrettighedsloven fra 1875 en del af en større tendens blandt medlemmer af USA's højesteret til at ugyldiggøre de fleste offentlige bestemmelser i den private sektor, undtagen når de behandler love designet at beskytte den traditionelle offentlige moral.

I 1930'erne, under New Deal, ændrede flertallet af højesteretsdommerne gradvist deres juridiske teori for at muliggøre større regeringsregulering af den private sektor under handelsklausulen og dermed banede vejen for forbundsregeringen for at vedtage borgerrettighedslove, der forbyder både diskrimination i den offentlige og private sektor på grundlag af handelsklausulen.

Civil Rights Act fra 1957 Rediger

Civil Rights Act fra 1957, underskrevet af præsident Dwight D. Eisenhower den 9. september 1957, var den første føderale lov om borgerrettigheder siden Civil Rights Act fra 1875. Efter at Højesteret i 1954 fastslog skolesegregation forfatningsstridig Brown v. Education Board, Begyndte Syddemokraterne en kampagne med "massiv modstand" mod adskillelse, og selv de få moderate hvide ledere skiftede til åbent racistiske holdninger. [8] [9] Dels i et forsøg på at dæmpe opfordringerne til mere vidtgående reformer foreslog Eisenhower et lovforslag om borgerrettigheder, der ville øge beskyttelsen af ​​afroamerikansk stemmeret. [10]

På trods af at den havde en begrænset indvirkning på afroamerikansk vælgerdeltagelse, på et tidspunkt, hvor sort vælgerregistrering kun var 20%, oprettede Civil Rights Act fra 1957 den amerikanske kommission for borgerrettigheder og USA's justitsministerium Civil Rights Division. I 1960 var sort afstemning kun steget med 3%, [11], og kongressen vedtog borgerrettighedsloven fra 1960, hvilket eliminerede visse smuthuller efter 1957 -loven.

1963 Kennedy borgerrettighedsregning Rediger

Lovforslaget fra 1964 blev første gang foreslået af USA's præsident John F. Kennedy i sin rapport til det amerikanske folk om borgerrettigheder den 11. juni 1963. [12] Kennedy søgte lovgivning ", der gav alle amerikanere ret til at blive betjent i faciliteter, der er åbne til offentligheden - hoteller, restauranter, teatre, detailforretninger og lignende virksomheder " - samt" større beskyttelse af stemmeretten ".

Kennedy holdt denne tale i kølvandet på Birmingham -kampagnen og det stigende antal demonstrationer og protester i hele det sydlige USA. Han blev flyttet til handling efter de forhøjede racespændinger og bølge af afroamerikanske protester i foråret 1963. [13] I slutningen af ​​juli, ifølge en New York Times artikel advarede Walter Reuther, præsident for United Auto Workers, om, at hvis kongressen ikke formåede at vedtage Kennedys borgerrettighedsregning, ville landet stå over for endnu en borgerkrig. [14]

Efter marts om Washington for Jobs and Freedom den 28. august 1963 besøgte arrangørerne Kennedy for at diskutere borgerrettighedsforslaget. [15] Roy Wilkins, A. Philip Randolph og Walter Reuther forsøgte at overtale ham til at støtte en bestemmelse om oprettelse af en Fair Employment Practices Commission, der ville forbyde diskriminerende praksis fra alle føderale agenturer, fagforeninger og private virksomheder. [15]

Kennel's lov om borgerrettigheder efterlignede borgerrettighedsloven fra 1875 og indeholdt bestemmelser om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på offentlige indkvarteringssteder og gjorde det muligt for den amerikanske statsadvokat at deltage i retssager mod statslige regeringer, der drev adskilte skolesystemer, blandt andre bestemmelser. But it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders, including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits. [16]

House of Representatives Edit

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Representatives drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative". [17] [18] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 Act and 1960 Act. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights. [16]

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage. [19] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

Johnson's appeal to Congress Edit

The assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long." [20]

Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee [16] it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially, Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many Representatives who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee. [16]

Lobbying efforts Edit

Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer Joseph L. Rauh Jr. and Clarence Mitchell Jr. of the NAACP. [21]

Passage in the Senate Edit

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas) led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. [23] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." [24]

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress." [25]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation. [26]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. [27]

The most dramatic moment during the cloture vote came when Senator Clair Engle (D-CA) was wheeled into the chamber. Engle, suffering from terminal brain cancer, was unable to speak when his name was called, he pointed to his left eye, signifying his affirmative vote. Engle died seven weeks later.

On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House–Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. [28]

Vote totals Edit

Totals are in YeaNay format:

  • The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
  • Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%)
  • The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%)
  • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)

By party Edit

The original House version: [29]

The Senate version, voted on by the House: [29]

By region Edit

Note that "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states. [31]

The House of Representatives: [31]

  • Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
  • Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) – Ralph Yarborough of Texas was the only Southerner to vote in favor in the Senate

By party and region Edit

The House of Representatives: [3] [31]

  • Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
  • Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
  • Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)

Note that four Representatives voted Present while 12 did not vote.

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin Mecham (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against

Aspects Edit

Women's rights Edit

Just one year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women. [33] [34] [35] [36] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, [37] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights", as "he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights", [38] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment. [39]

Smith asserted that he was not joking and he sincerely supported the amendment. Along with Representative Martha Griffiths, [40] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment. [39] For twenty years, Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category and felt now was the moment. [41] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs. [42] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives [. ] the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex. ' " [43]

Desegregation Edit

One of the most damaging arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools. [44] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing. [44] Humphrey said, "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race." [44] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing. [44]

Political repercussions Edit

The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Kennedy realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." [45] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election". [46] Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s. [47]

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation, [48] Republican 1964 presidential candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

Continued resistance Edit

There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [. ] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". [49] Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process". [49] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South. [50] When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina, attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre." [51] Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision. [52]

Later impact on LGBT rights Edit

In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, og R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, also barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [53] Afterward, USA Today stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "[t]he court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit." [54] On June 23, 2020, Queer Eye actors Jonathan Van Ness and Bobby Berk praised the Civil Right Act rulings, which Van Ness called "a great step in the right direction." [55] But both of them still urged the United States Congress to pass the proposed Equality Act, which Berk claimed would amend the Civil Rights Act so it "would really extend healthcare and housing rights". [55]

Title I—voting rights Edit

This title barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which acted as one barrier for black voters, other racial minorities, and poor whites in the South or address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification". It accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but would have to meet standards beyond citizenship. [56] [57] [58] The Voting Rights Act of 1965 directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship. [56]

Title II—public accommodations Edit

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce exempted private clubs without defining the term "private". [59]

Title III—desegregation of public facilities Edit

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Title IV—desegregation of public education Edit

Enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title V—Commission on Civil Rights Edit

Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VI—nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs Edit

Prevents discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds. If a recipient of federal funds is found in violation of Title VI, that recipient may lose its federal funding.

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The December 11, 2019 executive order on combating antisemitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in antisemitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding) working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016, as well as the IHRA list of Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism, "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent". [60]

Title VII—equal employment opportunity Edit

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 [61] ). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage. [62] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (se Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, [63] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait if the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To make a BFOQ defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and that there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). BFOQ is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a BFOQ (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School—Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. [64]

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

  • Federal government (the proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
  • Federally recognized Native American tribes [65]
  • Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions
  • Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations

The Bennett Amendment is a US labor law provision in Title VII that limits sex discrimination claims regarding pay to the rules in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs), enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4). [61] The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on employees' behalf. Where a state law contradicts a federal law, it is overridden. [66] Every state except Arkansas and Mississippi maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. They must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or they may lose the right to file suit. Title VII applies only to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e#b).

Administrative precedents Edit

In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex. [67] [68] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration. [69] As of November 2014 [update] , Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [70] [71] [ har brug for opdatering ]

On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees. [72] The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII. [73]

In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew the Holder memorandum. [74] According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed by BuzzFeed News, he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se." [75] Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is—it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court." [74] But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases. [73]

Title VIII—registration and voting statistics Edit

Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

Title IX—intervention and removal of cases Edit

Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists [ WHO? ] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts. [ citat nødvendig ]

Title X—Community Relations Service Edit

Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

Title XI—miscellaneous Edit

Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 Edit

Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. [76] The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation. The commission was also permitted for the first time to define "discrimination," a term excluded from the 1964 Act. [77]

Title II case law Edit

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) Edit

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the law's constitutionality, but did not settle all the legal questions surrounding it.


The Irish US senator who served three states and (almost) fought a duel with Lincoln

In a year when elections and politics are foremost in peoples' minds, it is worth remembering the amazing career of Shields (May 10, 1810 – June 1, 1879), an American politician and United States Army officer, who was born in Altmore, County Tyrone, Ireland.

Shields, a Democrat, is the only person in United States history to serve as a U.S. Senator for three different states.

Shields represented Illinois from 1849 to 1855, Minnesota from 1858 to 1859, and Missouri in 1879.

Read more

The Tyrone-born Shields was the nephew of another James Shields, also born in Ireland, who was a congressman from Ohio. The younger Shields came to the United States around 1826 and settled in Illinois where he studied and later practiced law. In 1839 he was named Illinois State Auditor. He was not the most popular auditor, especially with a Republican rising star, one Abraham Lincoln.

Shields almost fought a duel with Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1842. Wikipedia noted that Lincoln had published an inflammatory letter in a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, the Sangamon Journal, that poked fun at Shields, the State Auditor.

Lincoln's future wife and her close friend, continued writing letters about Shields without his knowledge. Offended by the articles, Shields demanded "satisfaction" and the incident escalated to the two parties meeting on a Missouri island called Sunflower Island, near Alton, IL to participate in a duel (as dueling was illegal in Illinois).

Lincoln took responsibility for the articles and accepted the duel. Lincoln had the opportunity to choose the weapon for the duel and he selected the cavalry broadsword, as Shields was an excellent marksman.

Just prior to engaging in combat, Lincoln made it a point to demonstrate his advantage (because of his long-arm reach) by easily cutting a branch just above Shields' head. The two participants' seconds intervened and were able to convince the two men to cease hostilities, on the grounds that Lincoln had not written the letters.

On July 1, 1846, Shields was commissioned a brigadier general of volunteers to fight in the Mexican–American War. He served under Zachary Taylor along the Rio Grande.

Following the war in 1848, he ran for the Senate from Illinois. His election was voided by the Senate on the grounds that he had not been a United States citizen for the nine years required by the United States Constitution: having been naturalized on October 21, 1840. He returned to Illinois and campaigned for re-election, and won the special election to replace himself, and was then seated.

In 1855, he was defeated for re-election, so he moved to Minnesota. He was elected as one of the two first Senators from that state, but his term was only from 1858 to 1859, and he was not re-elected.

Read more

Shields then moved to California and served as a brigadier general of volunteers from that state during the American Civil War. He commanded the 2nd Division of the V Corps, Army of the Potomac and was wounded at the Battle of Kernstown on March 22, 1862, but his troops inflicted the only tactical defeat of General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson during the campaign.

In 1866 Shields moved to Missouri, and in 1879, he was elected to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Senator Lewis V. Bogy. He served only three months and declined to run for re-election.

Shields died in Ottumwa, Iowa on June 1, 1879. He is buried in St. Mary's Cemetery, Carrollton, Missouri.

* Originally published in 2015.

Elsker du irsk historie? Del dine yndlingshistorier med andre historieinteresserede i IrishCentral History Facebook -gruppen.

Tilmeld dig IrishCentrals nyhedsbrev for at holde dig opdateret om alt det irske!


Merrick Garland vows to fight discrimination, domestic extremism as attorney general

Merrick Garland Merrick GarlandSusan Sarandon and Marianne Williamson call for justice in Steven Donziger case Senate panel advances Biden's first group of judicial nominees President Biden can prevent over 4,000 people from being sent back to prison MORE , President Biden Joe BidenJudge agrees to unseal 2020 ballots in Georgia county for audit George Floyd's family to visit White House on Tuesday Biden: US will provide vaccinations for South Korean service members MORE 's pick for attorney general, is vowing to see that the Justice Department roots out domestic political extremism and fights discrimination in the criminal justice system if he is confirmed by the Senate.

"It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the Attorney General is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law," Garland will say as part of his prepared remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. "And it is a fitting time to recognize the more than 115,000 career employees of the Department and its law enforcement agencies, and their commitment to serve the cause of justice and protect the safety of our communities."

The former judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals, whose confirmation hearings before the panel begin this week, has faced intense pressure from progressives to prosecute President Trump Donald TrumpJudge agrees to unseal 2020 ballots in Georgia county for audit Biden: 'Simply wrong' for Trump DOJ to seek journalists' phone records Biden dismisses question on UFOs MORE and his associates for alleged crimes while committed before and during his time in office.

“If we want accountability for Trump and his criminal network, we cannot just depend on Democratic leaders,” a statement from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said earlier this month. “We need to push them. A lot.”

Garland is slated to reference the deadly rioting by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in his opening remarks and to compare the incident to the Oklahoma City bombing in the late 1990s.

"From 1995 to 1997, I supervised the prosecution of the perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government," he will say. "If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 -- a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government."

Garland will also say he plans to address systemic racism in policing and help the Biden administration achieve criminal justice reform.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Department's Civil Rights Division, with the mission "to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society," Garland will tell the committee. "That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and climate change."

The American Civil Liberties Union has also pressed Biden and an upcoming Garland Justice Department to be aggressive in seeking reform.

“Your nomination comes at a moment when America faces an overdue reckoning with racial injustice that can start to be addressed with policies such as adopting a federal use-of-force standard, decriminalizing marijuana, and ending mandatory minimum sentences,” Cynthia Roseberry, the deputy director for policy at the ACLU wrote in a letter to Garland this month, asking him to make sure the Justice Department “will adopt policies to build a more racially just criminal legal system.”

In 2016, Republicans refused to give Garland a hearing as former President Obama's Supreme Court nominee because they argued the winner of that year’s presidential election should fill the vacancy left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.


Se videoen: Teachers, Editors, Businessmen, Publishers, Politicians, Governors, Theologians 1950s Interviews (Kan 2022).