Abstract
One of the most significant milestone that has been done for the United States’ civil rights platform is enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These rights were enacted on July 2nd, 1964. It is through these rights that the rights of civil servants in the United States were assured of protection against such discriminations based on their sex, race, and religion, place of origin or color of their skin.
This paper will in detail examine the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The paper will in detail elaborate on the meaning and significance of the Act as well as trace its origin. Passage of the act in the Senate will as well be addressed together with those who greatly contributed to its enactment. The features, amendments and influence of the Act will as well be addressed in the paper.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted on July 2, 1964. It is the most significant legislation milestone that has occurred on the civil rights platform in the United States. These pieces of law provided grounds for protection against discrimination based on sex, color, race, place of origin and religion. This enactment served to end the unequal application of voting requirements. It also helped to end racial segregation in schools and places of work. It also encompassed the protection against exclusion based on the services that are for general public utilization (Chambers, 2008).
The power of regular interstate commerce was provided under Article One [section 8]. The responsibility to guarantee the citizens equal protection of the laws was enshrined under the Fourth Amendment. The duty to protect the citizens voting rights were provided for in the Fifth Amendment. This Act was then signed into law by President Lyndon . B. Johnson on July 2, 1964 (Chambers Jr, 2008).
Origin of the Civil Rights Act
The law traces its origin to the civil rights speech that was made on June 11, 1963, by presidents John Kennedy. In his speech, he called for legislation that will provide all Americans the rights to be served in establishments that are meant for the public. These areas included theatres, restaurants and hotels. His call was also made on the need for the provision of the rights to vote (Blumrosen, 2011).
This speech was informed by the series of protests that were staged by the African-American community. A notable case is the Birmingham campaign referred to as the Children's Crusade. During this period, the students that were staging a demonstration against racial segregation and endured suffering that was caused by an attack by police dogs and the high-pressure fire horses (Guy, & Fenley, 2013).
His bill included the ban on discrimination in public establishments, provision for enabling the Attorney General to be enjoined in lawsuits that were against state governments operating segregated school systems and other requirements. The bill, however, did not provide light on other pressing issues that were of great significance as put forward by civil rights leaders. The issues that were not included comprised of protection against police brutality, lack of power is given to justice departments in the trial of segregation and discrimination cases and the ending of discrimination in the private employment sectors and department (Berg, 2013).
The legislative history of the Civil Rights Act
President John. F. Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before a televised address. The Senate minority leader Everett Dirksen and majority leader Mike Mansfield both were supportive of the bill, but had reservations concerning guaranteed access to public accommodation. The Republicans went one to make a comprised bill, but the president passed on the bill the way it was saying that it was done on imperative grounds (Brown, 2010).
The bill then went through the House of Representatives and the judiciary committee chaired by Emmanuel Celler. The Celler committee strengthened the act by adding various provisions. These included the ban on racial segregation in public employment, protection to black voters and elimination of segregation in public owned facilities, review of the segregation laws to limit chances of unequal treatment in assessing facilities such as restaurants and the provision of Attorney General in discrimination lawsuit cases (Chambers Jr, 2008).
Johnson's appeal to Congress
The assassination of John. F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the bill milestone. President Johnson made a bid to support the bill using his legislative experience. He made his joint address to the Congress for which he made his stand clear by saying that the best way to honor the late president was to pass his bill as first as possible (Chambers Jr, 2008).
There was a petition by Celler to discharge the bill from the Rules committee, although this required the support of the majority and by winter recess, there was a deficit of 50 signatures. The extent of the public opinion made it possible for it to pass through to the rules committee and the chair Smith relented on the humiliation of a successful discharge petition (McClain, 2015).
Passage in the Senate
Johnson wanted a faster passing of the bill to the floor of the Senate. This would probably pass through the Senate judiciary committee chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, and this seemed impossible due to Eastland's opposition. Mike Mansfield, who was the majority leader, made strategies to ensure that the bill bypassed the judiciary committee and on the Senate floor (Chambers Jr, 2008).
During the debate the ‘southern bloc ‘that comprised 18 southern Democratic senators and one Republican senator joined to oppose any legislation that tried to support social equality, intermingling, and amalgamation of races in the states of the south. The most severe opposition came from Senator Strom Thurmond purporting that the laws that were to be enacted in Capitol Hill were unconstitutional (Orfield, 2009).
After 54 days of stiff opposition, Senators Everett Dirksen, Thomas Kuchel, Humphrey Hubert and Mike Mansfield made a compromise bill to attract the Republicans vote in the period of resistance. The bill was a weaker version than the House version in regarding the conduct of private businesses, but it was not too small to consider it for approval (Guy, & Fenley, 2013).
The substituted compromised bill passed the Senate by a 73-27 margin. This was done on June 19, 1963. The Senate-House committee then adopted the version of the bill as per the Senate (Berman, 2011). Both Houses of the Congress passed the bill by the conference and the President signed into law on 2nd July, 1964 (Berman, 2011).
Voting figures and statistics
There were various disparities concerning the different versions of the bill and the affiliation of the Democrats regarding numbers in support of the bill.
Original House’s view of voting statistics and figures
Democratic Party voted 152 for and 96 against.
Republican Party voted 138 for and 34 against.
Senate’s Cloture
Democratic Party voted 44 for and 23 against.
Republican Party voted 27 for and 6 against.
The Senate version statistics
Democratic Party voted 46 for and 21 against.
Republican Party voted 27 for and 6 against.
House’s Senate version yielded;
Democratic Party 153 voting for and 91 against
Republican Party voted 136 for and 35 against.
Voting by the parties and geographical lines
There were cases of votes by regions and parties. The parties were divided to form two factions that included the Southern and North of the country. The ‘southern' faction referred to the members of the Congress that came from eleven states making up the Confederate States of America (Wiecek, & Hamilton, 2013). The Northern entity composed of the remaining 39 states irrespective of their geographical locations (Wiecek, & Hamilton, 2013).
Southern Democrats voted 7 for and 87 against.
Southern Republicans voted 0 for and 10 against.
Northern Democrats voted 145 for and 9 against.
Northern Republicans voted 138 for and 24 against.
The Senate version achieved;
Southern Democrats voted 1 for and 20 against.
Southern Republicans voted 0 for and 1 against.
Northern Democrats voted 45 for and 1 against.
Northern Republicans voted 27 for and 5 against.
Women rights highlight in the act
The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the act by Howard Smith. This was after the Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that prohibited differences in wages based on sex. There was a mixed reaction, whether Smith wanted to include and fight for the rights of women or superiority to make an attempt to oppose the bill by those with female chauvinism (Wiecek, & Hamilton, 2013).
Political implications of the act
The bill engineered long term impacts on the demographic support of both parties. The Attorney General and the president acknowledged that their support for the bill will cause them the support of the southern faction. They, however, believed that the states should be lost anyway, especially for a noble cause. This risk also included the loss of an election. Johnson, however, won the elections with a landslide victory and the South swung to the Republicans and became their stronghold by 1990s (Chambers Jr, 2008).
There were notable exceptions in the passing of the bill. These included the phrase that morality cannot be legislated in that it is innate to humans. This remark was made by Barry Goldwater. He supported various attempts to promote civil rights in 1957 and 1960 in addition to the outlawing of a poll tax (Chambers Jr, 2008).
Key features of the civil rights act
This barred unequal application of the voter requirements. This did not eliminate literacy tests that were used to segregate poor whites, black voters and other racial minorities that blocked them from the election process. It did not address the oppression of non-white voters.
Prohibited discrimination based on sex, color, religion and national origin in the access to public establishments in theaters, hotels, restaurants and other exempted private clubs without a clear and precise definition of the term individual (Chambers Jr, 2008).
This prohibited municipal and state governments from denying facilities by basing on sex, religion, color and the origin of nationality.
It provided the desegregation of public schools and authorized the Attorney General to file suits against the said matter.
It expanded the Civil Rights Commission with added power, rules and procedures.
This prevents discrimination by government agencies that are funded by Federal Agencies. Any violation of this leads to cutting of funds.
Prohibits discrimination by covered employees by sex, religion, national origin and race. It also prohibits discrimination by association for instance through interracial marriage.
It paved a way for moving segregation cases from courts with segregation judges and all white judges to Federal courts. This gave way for fair trials in courts.
Established Community Relation Service that was tasked to solve disputes that involve cases of discrimination.
This gave the penalty that is from the jury conviction of cases arising from the conviction of the violation of rights from the provisions on discrimination.
Amendments to the act
There were various changes made to the act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was introduced to reinforce Title VII. It investigated the claims of external discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act passed in 1972. The creations gave EEOC the power to implement its legislation.
The influence of the civil rights act
The act, though had little impacts during its time, was instrumental in shaping the future of civil rights legislation in the future of America. The future legislation was not customized to African –American people, but rather universally accepted standards. The Americans with Disability Act of 1990 was a product that gained its existence from the Civil Act of 1964. The act provided against discrimination based on disability. The Civil Rights Act provided the extension of the areas covered by the extent of discrimination .the disability law was built on this (Chambers Jr, 2008).
References
Berg, R. K. (2013). Equal Employment Opportunity Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Brook. L. Rev., 31, 62.
Blumrosen, R. G. (2011). Wage Discrimination, Job Segregation, and the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. U. Mich. JL Reform, 12, 397.
Brown, C. C. (2010). Black-white earnings ratios since the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The importance of labor market dropouts.
Chambers Jr, H. L. (2008). Civil Rights Act of 1964. Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 326.
Guy, M. E., & Fenley, V. M. (2013). Inch by inch: Gender equity since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X13510379.
Johnson, L. B. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
McClain, L. C. (2015). Symposium--The Civil Rights Act of 1964 at 50: Past, Present, and Future.
Orfield, G. (2009). The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Trusts, C., & Berman, P. S. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
Wiecek, W. M., & Hamilton, J. L. (2013). Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Confronting Structural Racism in the Workplace. La. L. Rev., 74, 1095.
