Introduction
Historically, the two critical titles (sections) of the 1964 Act of Civil Rights were passed embracing commerce’s power. One section bans discrimination on race in different public accommodation places, including hotels and restaurants, and generally advocates individual freedoms, rights, and liberties. The Civil Rights Act is applauded in the US for ending apartheid in workplaces and social places. Individuals were discriminated against based on national or sex origin, class, religion, color, and race. Contrary, the Commerce Clause refers to Article one, Section eight, and Clause three of the U.S. Constitution, allocating authorities to Congress to regulate Commerce between Indian tribes, foreign nations, and equally among the American States (Goldstein, 2004). The Commerce Clause addresses the ability to enter into a trade agreement and correspondingly the interstate trade barriers-related problems. Therefore, this study aims at understanding the actual relationship between Civil Rights laws and the Commerce Clause.
Main body
As mentioned above, the 1964 Civil Rights Act directly relates to the Commerce Clause considering that the Act dictates equal opportunities to all people irrespective of their race or creed. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to control regional Commerce. According to Ablavsky (2014), the enforcement of the Civil Rights Piece of 1964 depends primarily on the Commerce Clause. Parties in the commercial sector that do not strictly adhere to the Civil Rights Act are likely to face different and multiple consequences, including revoking their trading licenses by the Act. Katzenbach v. McClung’s case of 1964 gives an authentic glimpse of the relationship between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Commerce Clause. In this case, Mr. Ollie McClung was looking for a court order to bar the Civil Rights Act enforcement against Ollie’s Barbecue company. Arguably, the 1964 Act works together with the Commerce Clause in that it prevents discrimination in different recreational locations such as restaurants. Connectedly, the Trade Section gives Congress the authority to eradicate discrimination in different social gathering areas.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is related to the Commerce Clause, as it ensures that there is no interstate Business exploitation. Day and Weatherby (2015) shield under Article one, Section eight, and Clause three of the constitution to opine that the trade clause gives Congress the obligation to ensure fair transactions. According to Gibbons v. Ogden’s (1842) case declaration, Congress has powers and authority to control different industrial products’ prices. Reflectively, the Civil Rights Act aims at warranting safety against discrimination among all U.S. people regardless of their class, religion, and race. The aspect of Congress regulating prices between different states throughout the US indicates the existing relationship between the Act and the Commerce Clause. For instance, in Wickard v. Filburn’s case, the court decided on November 9, 1942, to penalize Filburn, a small farmer in the state, for harvesting twelve acres of wheat above his allotment under the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942). Arguably, the Filburn was fined because the extra wheat had not been subject to regulation, as indicated in the Commerce Clause, affecting interstate Commerce.
Additionally, the relationship between the Civil Human rights Decrees and the Commerce Clause dwells in the Pursue power. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, stretches Congress to collect and spend taxes (Kurland & Lerner, 1987). Congress gives some amount that it collects to private parties, including facilitating government contracts. Moreover, Congress spends the other amounts collected as taxes and turns it into government aid, whereby it gives grants to different private universities or individual students throughout the US (Day & Weatherby, 2015). Arguably, one of the Civil Rights Laws is that every child in the US has the right to education. By Congress giving grants to students in different higher learning institutions throughout the country, it empirically means that it aims at ensuring that every student, despite their economic statuses, receives an excellent and quality education. The commercial Clause boosts students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to have better education. Notably, Congress has passed laws barring discrimination by the individuals that receive the funds. Therefore, the Civil Rights laws depend on the Commerce Clause to attain their goal of better and affordable education for all American students.
The Civil Rights Laws directly link with the Commerce Clause considering that powers enshrined to the Congress under the Thirteenth Amendment. According to Foner (2017), the thirteenth amendment gives Congress the authority to fight against involuntary servitude and slavery. Historically, the US, namely the South, is known to be the epicenter of slavery (Foner, 2017). African Americans worked on big plantations for free, and those that were paid received little pay, unequal to the workload. Under the Civil Rights laws, the Act condemns this slavery acts rampant in the South before, during, and even after the Civil War. The thirteenth amendment restricts an employer from forcing the employees to work until such time that he pays the existing debt (Miller, 2015). The Clause equally gives employees the right to protest if the employer violates their rights or goes against the Memorandum of Understanding terms. Moreover, employers cannot hire and subsequently fire employees without a valid reason and compensation. Hence, Section two of the amendment gives Congress the authority to impose the article through appropriate legislation.
Besides, the Civil Rights Acts have a particular relationship with the Commerce Clause under the role which it gives Congress of ensuring that every citizen enjoys the whites’ different rights. As Chacón and Davies (2018) mention, Congress has legislated multiple statutes giving every civilian, namely the African throughout the US and other minority groups, an advantage to engage in different rights that were solely enjoyed by the White Americans in the past. For instance, African Americans and women in the country had no right to vote or vie for any political positions (Goldstein, 2004). Through the Commerce article, Congress has laid original decrees that allow the Blacks and other minority groups throughout the US to enjoy diverse liberties and rights. Historically, civil rights activists, such as Martin Luther King, fought for equality among races. The activists comprehended that pushing for equality was the main channel of ending racial discrimination in America. Thus, the Commerce Clause allows Congress to ensure that there is racial balance in the country and that all people have equal access to different rights.
Civic Rights and the Commerce Clause are related, whereby the Clause gives black people the authority to rent and live anywhere in the US. The Civil Rights had been fighting for residence equality, considering that African Americans were restricted to the exact places they can rent and stay (Andrews & Gaby, 2015). The Commerce Act allows people of all color to stay in their most preferable place and to rent or buy a house. The case between Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company (1967) develops a critical understanding of the relationship between Civil Rights and Commerce. In the case, Jones, who is the plaintiff accused Missouri’s Mayer company of refusing to sell him a residential house for the sole reason that he is black. The court ruled that the respondent violated the 42 U.S.C. Section One thousand nine hundred and eighty-two assurances equal rights to all citizens. The 1982 Congressional Act was responsible for prohibiting discrimination against blacks in the rental and sale of an asset. Thus, the Commerce Clause and Civil Laws are interrelated, whereby the Commerce Article rejuvenates the blacks’ rights to own property.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is prudent to note that the Civil Rights laws and the Commerce Clause are related. The Commerce Act allows Congress to have authority over interstate Commerce. The Clause ensures that incidences of interstate exploitation no longer exist. The Commerce Clause also dwells on the pursuit of power, whereby it gives people from different ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds equal chances and rights. The article guarantees that Congress has powers under the Thirteenth Amendment, hence preventing the ordeals of slavery in the US. Moreover, the Civil Rights Laws erupted due to the racial discrimination and slavery that African Americans were facing in the US. The Commerce Clause allowed black people to rent and own property. Equally, the Commerce Act gave Congress powers to ensure that every student receives excellent and quality education by giving them grants. Congress commenced giving grants to schools to develop their facilities into the required modern standards and purchase the necessary learning materials. Above all, the Commerce Clause gave Congress powers to enact the desires of the pioneering Civil Rights activists.
References
Ablavsky, G. (2014). Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause. The Yale Law Journal, 124, 1012.
Andrews, K. T., & Gaby, S. (2015, June). Local protest and federal policy: The civil rights movement’s impact on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. SociologicalForum, 30(1), 509-527. Web.
Chacón, J. A., & Davis, M. (2018). No one is illegal (Updated Edition): Fighting racism and state violence on the US-Mexico border. Haymarket Books.
Day, T. R., & Weatherby, D. (2015). The case for LGBT equality: Reviving the political process doctrine and repurposing the dormant Commerce Clause. Brooklyn Law Review, 81(3), 1015.
Foner, E. (2017). Abraham Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment, and the problem of freedom. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 15(1), 59.
Gibbons v. Ogden. (n.d.). Oyez. 2020, Web.
Goldstein, J. K. (2004). Constitutional Dialogue and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Louis University Law Journal, 49(1095).
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company. (n.d.). Oyez. 2020, Web.
Katzenbach v. McClung. (n.d.). Oyez. 2020, Web.
Kurland, P. B., & Lerner, R. (Eds.). (1987). The Founders’ Constitution: Article 2, Section 2,Through Article 7. (Vol. 4). University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D. A. (2015). The thirteenth amendment, disparate impact and empathy deficits. Seattle University Law Review, 39(847).
Wickard v. Filburn. (n.d.). Oyez. 2020, Web.