History
Civil Rights Legislations
Civil Rights Legislations refer to laws enacted to protect the rights of individuals from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or other characteristics. These laws aim to ensure equal treatment and opportunities for all members of society. Key examples include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were pivotal in advancing civil rights in the United States.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
4 Key excerpts on "Civil Rights Legislations"
Learn about this page
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
eBook - ePub- William J. Rothwell, William J. Rothwell(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Pfeiffer(Publisher)
ARTICLE 19 CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS Emily R. Wilkins Definition of LegislationThe Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted July 2, 1964, and was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was a revolutionary piece of legislation in the United States. The Civil Rights Act banned major forms of discrimination against blacks, including racial segregation, and women (The Dirksen Congressional Center, 2006). The Civil Rights Act was initially established by President John F. Kennedy, and its intention was to end the racial gaps between blacks and whites in the United States. The political and social climate attributed to the creation and development of the Civil Rights Act.Overview of Civil Rights Act The key components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were1. Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements, but did not abolish literacy tests sometimes used to disqualify African Americans and poor white voters. (The Dirksen Congressional Center, 2006) 2. Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining “private,” thereby allowing a loophole. (The Dirksen Congressional Center, 2006) 3. Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation, but did not authorize busing as a means to overcome segregation based on residence. (The Dirksen Congressional Center, 2006) 4. Authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination. (The Dirksen Congressional Center, 2006) 5. Outlawed discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people and creates an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers. (The Dirksen Congressional Center, 2006) 
eBook - ePub- Kevin J. Fandl(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
16Who Is Protected?
Civil rights legislation and policy promulgated since the civil rights movement is ordered around the idea of “protected classes” or characteristics. Protected characteristics include the aforementioned gender, age, or religion but can also include other categories such as pregnancy or sexual orientation. Some characteristics are only protected against discrimination at work or school or only in certain states, such as gender identity or criminal record.Arguably the most influential civil rights law since the end of the civil war is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion in public establishments with connections to interstate commerce or those that the state supports with financial assistance. Certain parts of the Civil Rights Act prohibit specific areas of discrimination. For instance, Title VI prohibits discrimination in educational programs that receive federal financial assistance, and Title VII prohibits employment discrimination when an employer engages in interstate commerce.Additional anti-discrimination statutes include the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. As seen previously, these statutes are codifications of situations Congress has thought deserve remedies, primarily because they occur often or are widespread. Despite these laws, the Supreme Court and other state and federal courts frequently interpret situations that are not covered by statute. For example, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 found that a victim of intentional sex discrimination has the private right to bring a civil action for damages against a recipient of federal financial assistance.17
eBook - ePubThe Laws That Shaped America
Fifteen Acts of Congress and Their Lasting Impact
- Dennis W. Johnson(Author)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
136Timeline for Civil Rights and Voting Rights1948 Split in Democratic Party; emergence of Dixiecrat protest party; Humphrey and strong civil rights plank. 1954 Brown v. Board of Education (I); Brown (II) in 1955.1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 enacted; a weak law, but first since the 1870s. 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960 enacted; another weak measure. 1963 Civil rights unrest in Birmingham, march on Washington, Kennedy introduces civil rights legislation. 1964 Prolonged Senate filibuster; enactment of Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1965 Beatings at Selma; enactment of Voting Rights Act of 1965. 1970s Voting Rights Act reauthorized and extended in 1970, reinforced and extended in 1975; significant increase in black registration; opposing tactics shift to voter dilution. 1982 Extension of Voting Rights Act for twenty-five years. 2006 Another extension of Voting Rights Act for twenty-five years. Both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Act were immediately challenged in court, and both were upheld in unanimous opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Less than six months after its passage, the Supreme Court upheld Title II, the public accommodations section, of the Civil Rights Act in two companion cases. In the first, the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress had “ample power” to protect against racial discrimination in motels and hotels serving interstate commerce. In a second case, Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court ruled that even a local establishment, Ollie’s Barbecue, serving only local white folks, came under the jurisdiction of Title II because it drew a substantial portion of its food supplies from out of state.137
eBook - ePubThe Fight for Fair Housing
Causes, Consequences, and Future Implications of the 1968 Federal Fair Housing Act
- Gregory D. Squires, Gregory D. Squires(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
The Legislative Battle for the Fair Housing Act (1966–1968)Rigel C. OliveriThe mid-1960s were a tumultuous time for the civil rights movement. Supporters of civil rights had achieved tremendous and hard-won legislative victories, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in employment and public accommodations, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They recognized, however, that there was another key area in which they needed to focus their efforts: fair housing. The rate of residential segregation was extremely high. Black families wishing to move into white neighborhoods were met with resistance at many levels—from real estate agents and property developers to mortgage lenders and white residents. These problems could only be addressed through a comprehensive fair housing law.With strong backing from the White House, an existing coalition of congressional allies, and a coordinated grass-roots advocacy effort, the battle for fair housing would be fought on multiple fronts.But the landscape was changing. In particular, the public aspect of the movement—the marches, speeches, and demonstrations—took place not in the Deep South, as with previous campaigns, but in the industrial North, prompting a vicious and violent backlash. Northern and Midwestern lawmakers who had previously been sympathetic to, or at least willing to compromise on, civil rights issues faced a loss of support from their white ethnic constituencies. At the same time, some prominent civil rights activists began to depart from the traditional emphasis on nonviolence, embracing a philosophy and rhetoric of greater militancy. Riots in Watts and subsequent bursts of racial violence in Cleveland and San Francisco had rattled the nation.Thus, despite the recent successes, the movement was beginning to splinter, its alliance of political support was fraying, and the public was growing uneasy with the increasing threats of violence on the streets. It was against this backdrop that the efforts to pass national fair housing legislation would play out.
