By the way, people do NOT have a right to demand to be hired. But free speech allows them the right to ask, and the law allows that racial hatred not be used as legitimate grounds for denial.
Which means that if there is going to be any enforcement of the law a highly qualified applicant who is a member of a race (or certain other types of groups) that is hated by the perspective employer has a right to be hired. Sure it would be possible to conceal the reason for not hiring the applicant but if enough hires are made and none from a particular group is hired that itself is considered evidence of illegal discrimination.
As for Amendment IX you have it exactly backwards. it doesn't give powers to the government. It states that people's rights are not limited to what the Constitution explicitly states. All the rights stated in the Constitution are peoples rights against the government, not government rights and/or obligations to restrict some people for the benefit of others.
Section 5 of the 14th gives Congress the power to pass necessary laws to ensure equality under the law.
Section 5 says - "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Section 1 mentions the equal protection of laws. This provides for equal treatment by the law, and for any protection granted by law applying to all equally. It doesn't say the government is granted the power to, or has the right or obligation to, force those outside the government equally in general or in any specific situation.
Section 2 talks about how representatives shall be apportioned. Sections 3 and 4 are similarly irrelevant. There is no section after 5.
Legally the federal government is limited to the powers the constitution gives it. No where in the 9th or 14th amendments is power of this sort given to the federal government. An argument could be made that for companies involved in Interstate commerce the federal government has extensive powers including the power to impose anti-descrimination laws, but the Interstate commerce clause doesn't deal with commerce that takes place entirely within one state. Sexism and racism may be unjust and/or uncivilized but that would not give the federal government of the United States any right to intervene to stop it in the private sector except for certain special cases such as descrimination by government contractors, or descrimination in interstate commerce.
Nobody has equality under the law where overt racism, sexism, or the like may be used to deny them essential services or the right to compete in the marketplace to earn a living.
That simply isn't true. Not all unfair, or even unjust situations are deviations from equal protection of the law. If the law treats everyone fairly and equally then you have equal protection of the law.
Also examples of overt racism do not automatically lead to denial of essential services or loss of the ability to compete in the marketplace. In fact most of the time they do not.
All of which doesn't mean I think the civil rights laws are entirely bad. They were well intentioned and have had some good practical results, however they are at least in part unconstitutional, and also unjustly infringe on people's freedom.
Tim |
