Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1871
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Work needed
I've done a little work on this article basically by cutting and pasting from the Ku Klux Klan article, which I've been involved in. There are a lot of things that could be done to this article:
- clarifying the names (Force Act, Klan Act, Civil Rights Act) and clearing up the relationship between the 1870 Force Act and the 1871 Klan Act, which I haven't been able to find a good explanation of
- doing something about the history of the Force Act --- not sure to what extent it was really separate legislation
- verifying that the Force Act is what was really used in the Chaney-Goodman-Schwener and Liuzzo cases --- every source just seems to refer generically to "1870 federal civil rights legislation," which makes me uncertain whether they're referring to the Force Act, Klan Act, both, or neither
- explaining in more detail how the heck the law can continue to be used when the Supreme Court basically pulled its teeth in 1882
--Bcrowell 18:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Added bits
I added some bits about the statute's history and the effect of the Pape ruling. Hopefully, this answers Bcrowell's question about modern usage of the statute. I deleted the bit about the 1882 ruling because it seems to give readers a false impression. The court didn't declare the statute unconstitutional, it said it applied only to state actors. This is not groundbreaking. Instead, I added a sentence or two about the statute's lack of use. Rebekah Zinn 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Too much history
The history of the Civil Rights Act is fascinating, but the entry contains so much history that a reader could get the impression that this law is purely a historical relic. It's not a relic. On the contrary, it's used all the time. I am an attorney whose practice consists almost entirely of suing city and state officials using this statute. The discussion omits a fact of enormous importance to both attorneys and their clients--namely that if you win the lawsuit, the government is required to pay your attorneys fees. This is what makes civil rights lawsuits feasible and a more powerful remedy than suing under state law.
The discussion of the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Force Act confuses the subject. They are entirely separate statues. I suggest that the section entitled "Later Use" be renamed to "Current Uses," be expanded to explain how ordinary people benefit from the Civil Rights Act today, and that it be moved higher up.
[edit] no rights
There is a rather snarky statement that seems to have made its way into this paragraph:
- Now the statute stands as one of the most powerful authorities with which federal courts may protect those whose rights are deprived. It is most often used by people trying to get out of trouble by suing a politician who is "violating their rights". usually, no rights are being violated.Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides a way individuals can sue to redress violations of federally protected rights, like the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Section 1983 prohibits public sector employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. Section 1983 rarely applies to private employers.
which should probably either be removed or explained. I am also troubled by the quotation marks around "violating their rights", which doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. --203.6.205.113 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
