Cocktailoppskrifter, brennevin og lokale barer

Amerikanske senatorer kjemper mot Spud -diskriminering

Amerikanske senatorer kjemper mot Spud -diskriminering



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Mens søtpoteten er kjent som en næringsrik grønnsak, ser det ut til at den beige-fargede fetteren har en dårlig rap på The Hill. I desember 2009 kuttet USAs landbruksdepartement (USDA) hvite poteter fra Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), noe som gjorde det til den eneste ekskluderte ferske frukten eller grønnsaken. Nå står to senatorer-Susan Collins (R-ME) og Mark Udall (D-CO)-opp for spudden og begjæring om at den skal bli inkludert på nytt.

De WIC gir føderal finansiering til stater for å støtte lavinntektsgravide og postpartum kvinner, samt spedbarn og barn opptil fem år. Støtten kommer i form av supplerende matvarer, henvisninger til helsevesenet og ernæringsopplæring.

De matpakke tilbys i forbindelse med WIC har et bredt spekter av kvalifiserte matvarer, fra frokostblandinger og melk til morsmelkerstatning og medisinsk mat, men hver kategori har en rekke begrensninger. I mange tilfeller er de smarte, næringsbevisste krav som er ment å veilede deltakernes helse. For eksempel, for 100 gram frokostblandinger må det være minst 28 milligram jern og ikke mer enn 21,2 gram sukrose og annet sukker.

Merknaden om at "en hvilken som helst variasjon av ferske eller kuttede grønnsaker" er kvalifisert "unntatt hvite poteter" har imidlertid utløst noen politisk kontrovers om råvarer. Ifølge senator Collins, "Poteten er en fantastisk næringsrik mat som er billig, lett å transportere, har lang lagringstid og kan brukes i en rekke oppskrifter.”

Den hvite poteten er faktisk lav i kalorier (et medium inneholder bare 163), høyt i kalium, kolesterolfritt, fettfritt, natriumfritt og fullt av fiber.

Så, hva er USDAs problem? Etter sigende var 2009 -regelen basert på en 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans -rapport, som bruker data tiår gammel. Hvis Collins og Udalls endring til Farm Bill går igjennom, vil misforståelsen om verdien av hvite poteter effektivt moses, smøres og bringes til hvile.


Likestillingsendring godkjennes av kongressen

WASHINGTON, 22. mars - Senatet vedtok likestillingsendringen i dag, og fullførte dermed kongresshandlinger mot endringen, som ville forby diskriminering på grunn av sox ved lov eller handlinger fra enhver regjering - føderal, stat eller lokal.

Den 49 -årige kampen for feminister for å få endringen gjennom kongressen endte klokken 16.38. da 84–8 avstemningen ble kunngjort.

Trettito minutter senere ble Hawaii den første staten som ratifiserte endringen da statens senat. og Representantenes hus registrerte sin godkjenning klokken 12:10. Hawaiian standardtid (17:10 Eastern Standard time).

Senatets gallerier, som var fylt med kvinner i alle aldre og mer enn noen få, menn, for det meste unge, jublet og jublet og la ut noen cowboy -rop til tross for at de var blitt advart på forhånd av 'senator. William V. Roth Jr., republikaner i Delaware, som ledet, at slike demonstrasjoner ikke var tillatt.

Det neste og siste trinnet før endringen kan tre i kraft, er ratifisering av 37 andre stater, de tre fjerdedeler som grunnloven krever.

Presidentens underskrift er ikke nødvendig.

Tillit til at ratifisering ville oppnås raskt ble uttrykt av en rekke tilhengere av endringen.

Senator Birch Bayh, demokrat i Indiana, som ledet senatets kamp for endringen, sa at han trodde det ville bli ratifisert "med forsendelse".

Til stede på senatgulvet da endringen ble vedtatt var representant Martha W. Griffiths, demokrat i Michigan, som vanligvis får

Fortsatt på side 21, kolonne 3 største enkeltstående andel av kreditten for vedtakelsen av endringen. For to år siden lyktes hun i en sjelden prøvd parlamentarisk manøver for å bringe endringen til salen i huset uten godkjenning fra rettskomiteen, som hadde nektet i flere tiår å holde høringer om tiltaket.

Representanter Margaret M. Heckler, republikaner i Massachuetts, og Bella S. Abzug, demokrat på Manhattan, så også på fra senatets etasje da endringen ble vedtatt - et privilegium som husmedlemmer har.

Fru Griffiths satt ved bakerste pulten som vanligvis var okkupert av senator Edmund S. Muskie, demokraten i Maine, og beholdt sin personlige telling av rollecall.

Muskie kom tilbake fra sin kampanje i tide til utlysningen, det samme gjorde senator Hubert H. Humphrey, demokrat i Minnesota. Begge hadde savnet det som generelt ble ansett for å være sentrale stemmer i går om endringer i endringen.

Men to andre demokratiske presidentkandidater, selv om de var til stede i går, var fraværende i dag - senatorene George McGovern fra South Dakota og Henry M. Jackson fra Washington.

Dagens senatdebatt sentrert, som den har fra begynnelsen av, om konsekvensene av endringen.

Den viktigste motstanderen, senator Sam J. Ervin Jr., demokrat i North Carolina, spådde mange fryktelige resultater. En serie på syv endringer han tilbød ble designet for å hindre disse resultatene.

Senatet stemte ned alle de foreslåtte endringene fra Ervin. Det største antallet stemmer han fikk for enhver foreslått endring var 17.

De åtte som stemte mot likestillingsendringen inkluderte, i tillegg til senator Ervin, bare én annen. Demokrat, John C. Stennis fra Mississippi. De andre motstanderne var Wallace F. Bennett fra Utah, Norris Cotton fra New Hampshire, Paul J. Fannin fra Arizona, Barry Goldwater fra Arizona og Clifford. P. Hansen fra Wyoming, alle republikanere, og James L. Buckley fra ‘New York, Conservative -Republican’.

Hvor lang tid det kan ta før endringen blir ratifisert var uklart. Senator Bayh indikerte at han trodde det ville være to år. Selve endringen tillater syv år å gå før den dør, hvis den ikke er ratifisert.

Common Cause, organisasjonen ledet av John W. Gardner som kaller seg en lobby for allmenn interesse, kunngjorde at den umiddelbart ville begynne å jobbe i de 26 statene der lovgivere er i sesjon nå. Der lovgivere ikke er i møte, vil de begynne å organisere for ratifisering, sa Common Cause.

Alle er enige om at det sannsynligvis vil være nødvendig med betydelig tvister før alle virkningene av endringen ble kjent. Følgende er imidlertid noen av lovene og praksis som endringen forventet å ugyldiggjøre:

Lov som pålegger en kvinne større rettigheter enn en manns kjøp eller salg av eiendom eller å drive en virksomhet.

Lov som fastsetter forskjellige aldre der menn og kvinner oppnår lovlig flertall eller har rett til å gifte seg eller bli kvalifisert for skatteunderstøttede pensjonsordninger.

¶Ulike opptakskrav for gutter og jenter i skatteunderstøttede utdanningsinstitusjoner og forskjellige fasiliteter og læreplaner - for eksempel kroppsøving og butikk - offentlige skoler. q Lovene om forskjellige fengselsstraffer, etter kjønn, for identiske lovbrudd.

¶ Lovene gir automatisk preferanse til mor i saker om varetekt.

¶ Lovverk som gir kvinner underholdsbidrag uten henvisning til behov og pålegger faren barnebidrag, uavhengig av de to foreldrenes relative økonomiske situasjoner.

¶ Forordninger som nekter utbetaling av arbeidsledighetskompensasjon til gravide som fremdeles er i stand til og villige til å arbeide, og lover som behandler graviditet annerledes enn andre midlertidige fysiske funksjonshemninger.

¶Militære regler som setter høyere inngangskrav for kvinnelige frivillige enn for menn.

Det er også enighet om at endringen ville kreve at kvinner ble utarbeidet hvis menn var det. Den viktigste avstemningen i senatet i går var over denne saken, og senator Ervin 's endring for å forby utarbeidelse av kvinner ble beseiret, 73 mot 18.

Hovedklausulen til endringen er som følger:

"Likhet i rettigheter under loven skal ikke nektes eller forkortes av USA eller noen stat på grunn av sex. & Quot


Opprinnelsen til asiatisk undertrykkelse: Gullruset og den gule faren

Da Gold Rush i California var i gang i 1848, flyttet mange amerikanere fra byene i øst i håp om å slå den rik i vest. Men gullet tiltrukket ikke bare amerikanere, det var også en tilstrømning av mennesker fra det kinesiske fastlandet. Så mange mennesker kom over at kineserne på et tidspunkt utgjorde en tredjedel av hele befolkningen i California. Og naturligvis var “native ” amerikanere ikke fornøyd med dette nye løpet av mennesker som konkurrerte mot dem om rikdom.

Dermed ble Yellow Peril i USA født, ideen om at den ȁgule mannen ”-østasiater-er primitive og usiviliserte, og derfor bør behandles med en lavere status enn den “white mannen ”. Mens Yellow Peril eksisterte i generasjoner på forhånd, var denne massive innvandringen den viktigste katalysatoren for fremveksten i statene. Denne troen på nykommerne, så vel som den implisitte fremmedfrykt mot dem, førte til at asiatiske amerikanere ble kastet inn i annenrangs status.


Bli med oss ​​på høyre side av historien. Vi representerer en styrke på over 3 millioner medlemmer og støttespillere, samlet av vår lidenskap for å realisere et virkelig likestilt samfunn. Vår styrke gjenspeiler hver enkeltes personlige engasjement for å hjelpe LHBTQ -fellesskapet på de måtene de kan, fra marsjering til donering til stemmegivning.

Se hva som skjer i nærheten av deg

Lær hva HRC gjør for å kjempe for likestilling i samfunnet ditt og hvordan du kan engasjere deg.


Noen republikanere sier at de slo kampen mot Bidens COVID-19-lovforslag. Men de har fortsatt søksmål.

President Biden, visepresident Kamala Harris og ektefellene deres stormer USA for å fremme $ 1,9 billioner amerikanske redningsplan, som gikk uten null republikanske stemmer, men varte høy offentlig godkjenning, selv blant visse republikanske velgere. & quot Konservative begynner å spørre: Har vi sluttet med dette? & quot Politico rapporter. Den overveldende stemningen i det republikanske partiet er at velgerne vil slå på regningen på 1,9 billioner dollar over tid. Men den vent-og-se-tilnærmingen har forvirret noen GOP-belysninger, og som hadde forventet en forsiktig innsats for å angripe regningen.

"Vi ble slått på denne," sa en rådgiver fra senatet Politico. Flere republikanere beskyldte tidligere president Donald Trump, direkte eller indirekte. En annen GOP -assistent i senatet sa at det ikke var oksygen for å bekjempe Biden's regning fordi vi brukte den tidlige delen av året på å håndtere opprørs- og riksrettssaken, og så hoppet vi rett inn i passasjen. & Quot

Angrep som fokuserte på mangel på topartistemmer løp inn i den brede topartistøtten blant velgere og statlige og lokale tjenestemenn som ønsket de 350 milliarder dollar i lokal lettelse velkommen. Den "liberale ønskelisten" -avgiften fikk aldri grep, og beskyldningen om at mange bestemmelser ikke hadde noe å gjøre med pandemien stemte ikke for velgerne.

De spredte republikanske angrepene som demokratene ballongerer underskuddet falt flatt, blant annet fordi & quotRepublikanere mistet troverdigheten i det spørsmålet i løpet av Trump -årene, spesielt de første par årene da vi hadde makt til å gjøre noe med det, sa GOP -konsulent Brendan Steinhauser. "Det var bare det at vi ikke engang snakket om utgifter eller gjeld eller underskudd eller noe sånt." Og republikansk fokus på kulturkrigsspørsmål og migranter som krysser grensen er distraksjoner fra regningen, ikke motstridelser.

Demokrater svettet ikke politikken og var ærlig talt aldri, & quot Politico rapporter. Men 21 GOP -statsadvokater general tirsdag truet med å ta rettslige skritt mot Biden -administrasjonen på grunn av en bestemmelse i ARP for å forhindre stater i å bruke 350 milliarder dollar i lokal bistand for å oppveie nye skattelettelser, Washington Post rapporter.

GOP -advokatgeneral ba finansminister Janet Yellen i et brev tirsdag om å avklare at statene kan fortsette med noen av sine planer om å redusere skatt, og sa at hvis det ikke er tilfellet, vil ARP representere den største invasjonen av statens suverenitet av kongressen i historien til vår republikk & quot, og de vil iverksette "passende ytterligere tiltak."

Cherokees kjemper mot dommerens kjennelse som lar rivaliserende Catawba -stamme bygge NC -kasino

Catawba Indian Nation for å åpne et midlertidig spillanlegg i Kings Mountain.

Donald Trumps online trafikk har sunket massivt, da han sliter med å vinne tilbake sitt publikum etter å ha blitt utestengt fra sosiale nettverk

Blogginnlegg om den tidligere presidenten 's & quot

AnnonseLegg en pose på bilspeilet når du reiser

Strålende bilrengjøringshacks Lokale forhandlere skulle ønske du ikke visste det

Mejía slår grand slam på 12. plass, Rays slo Blue Jays 9-7

Francisco Mejía slo en grand slam i 12. omgang og Tampa Bay Rays vant sin åttende kamp på rad ved å slå Toronto Blue Jays 9-7 fredag ​​kveld. Etter at Jeremy Beasley (0-1) med vilje gikk Joey Wendle for å laste basene, kjørte Mejía den neste banen over høyre feltvegg. "Det var et ganske spesielt øyeblikk," sa Tampa Bay -manager Kevin Cash.

Alle gangene Bill Gates angivelig engasjerte seg i tvilsom oppførsel før han og Melinda Gates kunngjorde skilsmissen

Gates ' oppførsel overfor kvinnelige kolleger og bånd til Jeffrey Epstein har blitt undersøkt i kjølvannet av hans ventende skilsmisse fra Melinda French Gates.

Apples administrerende direktør Tim Cook vitnet i Epic v. Apple -rettssaken. Her er 4 viktige takeaways.

Det var første gang Tim Cook inntok stillingen som administrerende direktør i Apple. Dommeren hadde flere spørsmål til ham om forretningsmodellen i App Store.

Foreldre rasende etter at Florida high school redigerte jentebokbilder for å gjøre klærne mer konservative

"Bartrams døtre fortjener en unnskyldning," sier en mor

Sorgende far saksøker etter at politiet søkte etter narkotika i urne som inneholdt aske av datter

Politiet i Springfield, Illinois, fortalte Dartavius ​​Barnes at de hadde funnet meth eller ecstasy i bilen hans. Det var datterens levninger

‘Die Jew.’ Jødisk familie som besøkte Sør -Florida, ble trakassert mens de gikk i Bal Harbour

Da en jødisk familie som besøkte Sør -Florida fra New Jersey gikk langs Collins Avenue i Bal Harbour tidligere denne uken, begynte fire menn i en SUV å kaste fornærmelser - og søppel - mot dem.

Jeg prøvde Burger Kings nye stekte kyllingsmørbrød og ble sjokkert over at de kom fra en hurtigmatskjede

Burger King kunngjorde onsdag en ny serie med stekte kyllingsmørbrød. Insider gjennomgikk tre versjoner som en del av en forhåndsvisning av pressen.

Ashton Kutcher 's tvilling ønsket ikke å være cerebral pares ansikt. ' Nå er han glad

Michael Kutcher, tvillingen til skuespilleren Ashton Kutcher, åpnet for & quotToday & quot om hans reise med cerebral parese og forholdet til broren.

Huskandidat Bouchard impregnert jente, 14, da han var 18

Wyoming delstats senator Anthony Bouchard har avslørt at han impregnerte en 14 år gammel jente han hadde et forhold til da han var 18. Den amerikanske huskandidaten avslørte forholdet i en Facebook Live-video til sine støttespillere torsdag. "Så, bunnlinjen, det er en historie da jeg var ung, to tenåringer, jente blir gravid," sa han i Facebook Live -videoen.

En dommer i Georgia vil la Fulton County -stemmesedler bli forseglet og undersøkt for bevis på svindel

Dommer Brian Amero gikk med på å la 145 000 stemmesedler fraværende fra Fulton County åpnes som en del av en revisjon av valget i 2020.

Nylig avslørte tekstmeldinger kaster lys over hvordan Matt Gaetz 's wingman kan bringe hans undergang

Jeg ville ikke føle meg veldig komfortabel hvis jeg var noen som hadde begått en forbrytelse med Joel Greenberg akkurat nå, sa en tidligere FBI -agent til Insider.

Iran skutt bevisst ned et fly fullt av passasjerer i terrorhandling, fastslår kanadisk dommer

Juryen skal bestemme hvor mye Iran skal betale ofre i erstatning, men innsamlingen vil være utfordrende

Verdensmestrene Hurd, Memmel eye big picture på US Classic

Morgan Hurd kan føle når presset kryper på henne. Det eneste den 19 år gamle Hurd ikke har gjort er å lage et olympisk lag, et biprodukt av kalenderen mer enn noe annet. Hurd så ut til å være på vei i mars i fjor da hun vant American Cup i det som skulle være det første store skrittet mot Tokyo -lekene i 2020 etter en tidvis vanskelig konkurransesesong 2019.

Simone Biles spikret et hvelv så farlig at ingen kvinner noen gang har prøvd det i konkurranse

Selv etter å ha oppnådd en bragd andre aldri har våget å prøve, kritiserte Biles seg selv fordi hun ble litt nervøs på landingen.

Liz Cheneys hovedutfordrer beskriver impregnering av 14 år gammel jente som 18-åring som ‘som historien om Romeo og Julie’

I det han kalte en "Romeo og Juliet-historie", avslørte US House-kandidat og Wyoming statssenator Anthony Bouchard sent torsdag at han hadde et forhold til og impregnert en 14 år gammel jente da han var 18 år, rapporterer The Casper Star-Tribune Fredag. Bouchard brøt nyheten selv i en Facebook Live på torsdag, og forsøkte å få hovedet på historien etter å ha lært at folk undersøkte den i opposisjon til hans kandidatur, & quot, skriver Star-Tribune. Senatoren er midt i å utfordre rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) Om sitt sete i huset, men sier at han ikke tror at Cheneys team var involvert i å grave opp historien, rapporterer Star-Tribune. "To tenåringer, jenta blir gravid," sier Bouchard i Facebook Live -videoen. "Du har hørt historiene før. Hun var litt yngre enn meg, så det ligner på historien til Romeo og Julie. & Quot; Bouchard avslørte ikke jentas alder i Facebook Live -videoen, rapporterer Hill. Etterforskere har jaget familien min i flere uker, og nå kommer de liberale falske nyhetene med et hit om mine tenåringer. Det er derfor gode mennesker unngår å stille til valg. Jeg vant ikke tilbake, Swamp! @RepLizCheney Ta med det! https://t.co/gaVSm6MkZM - Anthony Bouchard for kongressen mot Cheney (@AnthonyBouchard) 21. mai 2021 sier Bouchard at de to giftet seg i Florida da han var 19 år og hun var 15 år, og ble skilt tre år senere. I en alder av 20 begikk den ikke navngitte ekskona selvmord, rapporterer Star-Tribune. Hun hadde problemer i et annet forhold, la Bouchard til i videoen sin. "Faren hennes begikk selvmord." Bouchards planer om å stille til valg forblir tilsynelatende upåvirket: " Jeg kommer til å bli i dette løpet, sa han til Star-Tribune. Etter å ha kunngjort sitt kandidatur i januar, rapporterte Bouchard at han samlet inn over 300 000 dollar i årets første kvartal. Mer på The Casper Star-Tribune. Flere historier fra theweek.com Joe Manchin kaller stadig større sannsynlighet for GOP -filibuster fra 6. januar -kommisjonen 'so nedslående ' Angelina Jolie står helt stille, uten dusjer, dekket av bier for World Bee DayBiden -kompromisset fremkaller kald mottakelse fra GOP -forhandlere

Eier av AP -tårnet ødelagt i israelsk luftangrep i Gaza sier at han ikke så noen bevis for Hamas i bygningen

EKSKLUSIVT: Hamas hadde ingen tilstedeværelse i Gaza -bygningen som huset AP, sier eieren. Da de ble presset av Insider, var israelske tjenestemenn uenige.

Marjorie Taylor Greene kaller Nancy Pelosi 'mentally ill ' og sammenligner husmaskeregler med Holocaust

Greene er en av flere republikanske lovgivere som åpent har trosset kravet om å bære masker i husgulvet denne uken.

Elon Musk gratulerer Ford med debuten med sin nye elektriske F-150 Lightning pickup

Noen dager etter at Tesla-sjef Elon Musk debuterte selskapets Cybertruck i november 2019, så det 250 000 forhåndsbestillinger.


Lagre spussene! Senatorer kjemper for å beholde poteter i skolelunsjene

En gruppe senatorer fra potetproduserende stater jobber for å hjelpe til med å snu den "dårlige rapen" som poteter har mottatt de siste årene og for å redde skolelunsjprogrammet fra å forby eller alvorlig begrense spuds i det nasjonale skolelunsjprogrammet.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine og Mark Udall, D-Colo., Har foreslått en endring av lovforslaget til senatets landbruksbevilgninger som vil beskytte skolers fleksibilitet når det gjelder å servere sunne frukter og grønnsaker i skolens frokost- og lunsjprogrammer.

Nye retningslinjer utgitt i januar fra US Department of Agriculture ville redusere bruken av poteter, inkludert hvite poteter, i skolelunsjer, til totalt en kopp per uke. Regelen vil også forby stivelsesholdige grønnsaker fra skolefrokostprogrammet helt fra neste år.

Senatorendringen ville forhindre USDA i å gå videre ved å begrense alternativene til lokale skoledistrikter, det Collins kaller en "vilkårlig begrensning" på spuds. Collins sier at dette vil utgjøre diskriminering av en grønnsak med mer kalium enn en banan, som er kolesterolfri, lav og fett og natrium og "kan serveres på utallige sunne måter."

Senatorene argumenterer mot de betydelige kostnadene skoledistriktene ville pådra seg hvis de ikke kunne bruke poteter, som er billige sammenlignet med andre grønnsaker, i skolemåltidene.

"Jeg har hørt fra skolelunsjleverandører i Colorado at denne begrensningen ville resultere i betydelige utfordringer for matservering gjennom økte kostnader, redusert fleksibilitet og redusert deltakelse i skolemåltid," sa Udall. ”På noen områder kan økt fleksibilitet for å servere denne næringsrike og tilgjengelige grønnsaken faktisk hjelpe skolene med å håndtere kostnadene, slik at de har råd til å kjøpe andre dyrere grønnsaker.

Collins kontor sier at hun jobber med landbrukssekretær Tom Vilsack for å oppmuntre skolene til å finne bedre måter å tilberede poteten på, i stedet for å forby eller alvorlig begrense den.

"USDA bør ikke begrense tilgjengeligheten, men i stedet oppmuntre til sunn forberedelse," sa Collins.


Lov om hatkriminalitet mot COVID-19 for å bekjempe asiatisk amerikansk diskriminering passerer senatet

Demokrater presser på for lovgivning som tar sikte på å bekjempe hatkriminalitet mot asiatiske amerikanere og styrke rapportering om hatkriminalitet. USA I DAG

WASHINGTON-Senatet vedtok med overveldende topartistøtte et lovforslag om hatkriminalitet for å ta opp en drastisk økning i vold og diskriminering rettet mot asiatiske amerikanere under COVID-19-pandemien.

COVID-19 hatkriminalitetsloven ryddet kammeret i en stemme på 94-1 torsdag. Det ville fremskynde justisdepartementets anmeldelse av hatkriminalitet og ville utpeke en tjenestemann ved avdelingen som skulle føre tilsyn med innsatsen.

Det vil også gi avdelingen i oppgave å koordinere med lokale rettshåndhevelsesgrupper og samfunnsbaserte organisasjoner for å legge til rette for og øke bevisstheten om rapportering om hatkriminalitet, inkludert etablering av et online rapporteringssystem for hatkriminalitet på flere språk.

Lovgivningen, som nå leder til det demokratisk ledede huset, er en av få lovforslag som skal godkjennes av dette senatet med støtte fra både republikanere og demokrater. Mange demokrater forventet en lovgivende kamp, ​​men republikanerne signaliserte tidlig at de var villige til å gå på akkord med lovgivningen, og senatorer fra begge parter har forhandlet i flere uker.

Den utvidede lovgivningen, ledet av senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, gjennomgikk flere topartsendringer før den siste passasjen.

Hirono sa fra senatsgulvet torsdag at ved å vedta lovforslaget, "vil vi sende et kraftig budskap om solidaritet til AAPI-samfunnet om at senatet ikke vil være en tilskuer da anti-asiatisk vold stiger i landet vårt." AAPI refererer til det asiatiske amerikanske og Pacific Islander -samfunnet.

Hatkriminalitet øker mot fargesamfunn. I 2019 nådde de sitt høyeste nivå på mer enn et tiår. Her er hvorfor. USA I DAG

Begge senatets ledere støttet lovforslaget.

"Avstemningen i dag om lovforslaget om anti-asiatiske hatforbrytelser er et bevis på at når senatet får muligheten til å jobbe, kan senatet arbeide for å løse viktige spørsmål," sa majoritetsleder Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., fra senatet. før avstemningen.

Minoritetsleder i senatet Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Sa i forrige uke at som "stolt ektemann til en asiatisk amerikansk kvinne, tror jeg at denne diskrimineringen mot asiatiske amerikanere er et reelt problem." McConnell er ektemannen til Elaine Chao, den tidligere transporten sekretær som ble født i Taiwan.

En endring i lovforslaget fra senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, med støtte fra Hirono, hjalp megler og "utvidet støtten" til lovgivningen ved å justere lovforslagets språk i referanser til "COVID-19 hatkriminalitet."

Justeringen hjalp med å rulle inn GOP -støtte. Republikanerne hadde uttrykt bekymring for at den første teksten var for smal til å definere typer hatkriminalitet.

Endringen ville også få justisdepartementet til å utstede veiledning "rettet mot å øke bevisstheten om hatkriminalitet under COVID-19-pandemien."

Lovforslaget vil fremskynde gjennomgangen av hatkriminalitet blant en økning i hendelser mot det asiatiske amerikanske samfunnet. USA I DAG

Et annet tillegg til regningen fra Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Og Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Ville etablere tilskudd for å hjelpe lokale og statlige myndigheter for å oppmuntre til mer opplæring i hatkriminalitet for rettshåndhevelse, etablere hatkriminalitetstelefoner og tillate en "rehabiliterings" innsats for gjerningsmenn til hatkriminalitet.

Lovforslaget må fremdeles passere huset for å komme til president Joe Bidens skrivebord. Det kom til å bli diskutert i huskomiteen på tirsdag, men formannen, rep. Jerry Nadler, DN.Y., utsatte den diskusjonen til senatet stemte, noe som betyr at lovverket neppe vil gå til full stemme i kl. minst noen uker.

- Å adressere hatkriminalitet til AAPI er fortsatt en topprioritet for husdemokrater. Vi følger nøye med på senatets overveielser, og vi vil iverksette tiltak om dette spørsmålet snart, sier House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

I mer enn et år har rapporter om hathendelser mot asiatiske amerikanere klatret.

Stop AAPI Hate, en fortalergruppe som sporer hathendelser, sa at den hadde mottatt nesten 3800 rapporter om hathendelser over hele landet siden mars 2020, sammenlignet med omtrent 100 hendelser årlig tidligere år. Den sporet 987 i de to første månedene av 2021.

Etter masseskytingen i Georgia i forrige måned som drepte åtte mennesker - hvorav seks var kvinner av asiatisk avstamning - presset lovgivere i begge kongresskamrene på for å fremskynde lovgivningen og ba om raske handlinger.

En annen endring i lovverket, som en del av samtaler med senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Inkluderer å legge til navnene på de åtte menneskene som ble drept.

Asiatiske amerikanske lovgivere hadde innført anti-hat lovgivning i den siste kongressen, men bortsett fra at huset vedtok en ikke-bindende resolusjon som fordømte anti-asiatisk bigotry og diskriminering under COVID-19-pandemien, ble ingen lovgivning undertegnet lov.

Rep. Grace Meng, DN.Y., medforfatter av lovgivningen, sa på et møte med Schumer mandag at "vi endelig tar affære i kongressen" etter et års diskriminering som har gjort mange i AAPI-samfunnet redde å bruke offentlig transport eller til og med forlate hjemmene sine.

Lovgivningen støttes av Biden og Det hvite hus. Presidenten sa i mars, "Det er på tide at kongressen kodifiserer og utvider disse handlingene - fordi hver person i nasjonen vår fortjener å leve sine liv med sikkerhet, verdighet og respekt."


Innhold

Rekonstruksjon og New Deal era Rediger

I landemerket fra 1883 Sivile rettighetssaker, hadde USAs høyesterett avgjort at kongressen ikke hadde makt til å forby diskriminering i privat sektor, og dermed fratok borgerrettighetsloven fra 1875 mye av dens evne til å beskytte borgerrettigheter. [7]

På slutten av 1800 -tallet og begynnelsen av 1900 -tallet var den juridiske begrunnelsen for å oppheve borgerrettighetsloven fra 1875 en del av en større trend fra medlemmer av USAs høyesterett for å ugyldiggjøre de fleste offentlige forskrifter i privat sektor, bortsett fra når de behandler lover utformet for å beskytte tradisjonell offentlig moral.

På 1930 -tallet, under New Deal, flyttet flertallet av høyesterettsdommerne gradvis sin juridiske teori for å åpne for større regulering av den private sektoren under handelsklausulen, og dermed banet vei for den føderale regjeringen å vedta borgerrettighetslover som forbyr både diskriminering i offentlig og privat sektor på grunnlag av handelsklausulen.

Civil Rights Act fra 1957 Rediger

Civil Rights Act fra 1957, signert av president Dwight D. Eisenhower 9. september 1957, var den første føderale borgerrettighetslovgivningen siden Civil Rights Act fra 1875. Etter at Høyesterett dømte skolesegregeringen grunnlovsstridig i 1954 i Brown v. Board of EducationBegynte sør -demokrater en kampanje med "massiv motstand" mot desegregering, og selv de få moderate hvite lederne gikk over til åpent rasistiske posisjoner. [8] [9] Delvis i et forsøk på å dempe oppfordringer til mer vidtrekkende reformer, foreslo Eisenhower et lovforslag om borgerrettigheter som ville øke beskyttelsen av afroamerikansk stemmerett. [10]

Til tross for at det hadde en begrenset innvirkning på afroamerikansk velgerdeltakelse, i en tid da svart velgeregistrering bare var 20%, opprettet Civil Rights Act fra 1957 USAs kommisjon for sivile rettigheter og USAs justisdepartement sivilrettighetsavdeling. I 1960 hadde svart stemmegivning økt med bare 3%, [11] og kongressen vedtok borgerrettighetsloven fra 1960, som eliminerte visse smutthull som ble etterlatt av loven fra 1957.

1963 Kennedy borgerrettighetsregning Rediger

Lovforslaget fra 1964 ble først foreslått av USAs president John F. Kennedy i sin rapport til det amerikanske folket om sivile rettigheter 11. juni 1963. [12] Kennedy søkte lovgivning "som ga alle amerikanere rett til å bli betjent i anlegg som er åpne til publikum - hoteller, restauranter, teatre, butikker og lignende virksomheter " - samt" større beskyttelse for stemmeretten ".

Kennedy holdt denne talen i kjølvannet av Birmingham -kampanjen og det økende antallet demonstrasjoner og protester i hele Sør -USA. Han ble flyttet til handling etter de forhøyede rasespenningene og bølgen av afroamerikanske protester våren 1963. [13] I slutten av juli, ifølge en New York Times Walter Reuther, president i United Auto Workers, advarte om at hvis kongressen ikke klarte å godkjenne Kennedys borgerrettighetslov, ville landet stå overfor en ny borgerkrig. [14]

Etter marsjen om Washington for jobber og frihet, 28. august 1963, besøkte arrangørene Kennedy for å diskutere borgerrettighetslovforslaget. [15] Roy Wilkins, A. Philip Randolph og Walter Reuther forsøkte å overtale ham til å støtte en bestemmelse om å opprette en Fair Employment Practices Commission som ville forby diskriminerende praksis fra alle føderale etater, fagforeninger og private selskaper. [15]

Kennedys lov om borgerrettigheter etterlignet borgerrettighetsloven fra 1875 og inkluderte bestemmelser som forbyr diskriminering på offentlige overnattingssteder og gjorde det mulig for USAs riksadvokat å delta i søksmål mot statlige myndigheter som drev segregerte skolesystemer, blant andre bestemmelser. But it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders, including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits. [16]

House of Representatives Edit

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Representatives drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative". [17] [18] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 Act and 1960 Act. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights. [16]

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage. [19] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

Johnson's appeal to Congress Edit

The assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long." [20]

Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee [16] it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially, Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many Representatives who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee. [16]

Lobbying efforts Edit

Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer Joseph L. Rauh Jr. and Clarence Mitchell Jr. of the NAACP. [21]

Passage in the Senate Edit

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas) led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. [23] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." [24]

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress." [25]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation. [26]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. [27]

The most dramatic moment during the cloture vote came when Senator Clair Engle (D-CA) was wheeled into the chamber. Engle, suffering from terminal brain cancer, was unable to speak when his name was called, he pointed to his left eye, signifying his affirmative vote. Engle died seven weeks later.

On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House–Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. [28]

Vote totals Edit

Totals are in YeaNay format:

  • The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
  • Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%)
  • The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%)
  • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)

By party Edit

The original House version: [29]

The Senate version, voted on by the House: [29]

By region Edit

Note that "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states. [31]

The House of Representatives: [31]

  • Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
  • Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) – Ralph Yarborough of Texas was the only Southerner to vote in favor in the Senate

By party and region Edit

The House of Representatives: [3] [31]

  • Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
  • Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
  • Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)

Note that four Representatives voted Present while 12 did not vote.

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin Mecham (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against

Aspects Edit

Women's rights Edit

Just one year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women. [33] [34] [35] [36] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, [37] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights", as "he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights", [38] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment. [39]

Smith asserted that he was not joking and he sincerely supported the amendment. Along with Representative Martha Griffiths, [40] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment. [39] For twenty years, Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category and felt now was the moment. [41] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs. [42] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives [. ] the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex. ' " [43]

Desegregation Edit

One of the most damaging arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools. [44] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing. [44] Humphrey said, "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race." [44] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing. [44]

Political repercussions Edit

The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Kennedy realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." [45] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election". [46] Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s. [47]

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation, [48] Republican 1964 presidential candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

Continued resistance Edit

There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [. ] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". [49] Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process". [49] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South. [50] When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina, attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre." [51] Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision. [52]

Later impact on LGBT rights Edit

In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, og R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, also barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [53] Afterward, USA Today stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "[t]he court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit." [54] On June 23, 2020, Queer Eye actors Jonathan Van Ness and Bobby Berk praised the Civil Right Act rulings, which Van Ness called "a great step in the right direction." [55] But both of them still urged the United States Congress to pass the proposed Equality Act, which Berk claimed would amend the Civil Rights Act so it "would really extend healthcare and housing rights". [55]

Title I—voting rights Edit

This title barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which acted as one barrier for black voters, other racial minorities, and poor whites in the South or address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification". It accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but would have to meet standards beyond citizenship. [56] [57] [58] The Voting Rights Act of 1965 directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship. [56]

Title II—public accommodations Edit

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce exempted private clubs without defining the term "private". [59]

Title III—desegregation of public facilities Edit

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Title IV—desegregation of public education Edit

Enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title V—Commission on Civil Rights Edit

Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VI—nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs Edit

Prevents discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds. If a recipient of federal funds is found in violation of Title VI, that recipient may lose its federal funding.

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The December 11, 2019 executive order on combating antisemitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in antisemitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding) working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016, as well as the IHRA list of Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism, "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent". [60]

Title VII—equal employment opportunity Edit

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 [61] ). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage. [62] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (se Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, [63] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait if the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To make a BFOQ defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and that there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). BFOQ is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a BFOQ (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School—Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. [64]

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

  • Federal government (the proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
  • Federally recognized Native American tribes [65]
  • Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions
  • Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations

The Bennett Amendment is a US labor law provision in Title VII that limits sex discrimination claims regarding pay to the rules in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs), enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4). [61] The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on employees' behalf. Where a state law contradicts a federal law, it is overridden. [66] Every state except Arkansas and Mississippi maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. They must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or they may lose the right to file suit. Title VII applies only to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e#b).

Administrative precedents Edit

In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex. [67] [68] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration. [69] As of November 2014 [update] , Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [70] [71] [ trenger oppdatering ]

On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees. [72] The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII. [73]

In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew the Holder memorandum. [74] According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed by BuzzFeed News, he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se." [75] Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is—it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court." [74] But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases. [73]

Title VIII—registration and voting statistics Edit

Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

Title IX—intervention and removal of cases Edit

Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists [ WHO? ] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts. [ trenger Kilde ]

Title X—Community Relations Service Edit

Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

Title XI—miscellaneous Edit

Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 Edit

Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. [76] The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation. The commission was also permitted for the first time to define "discrimination," a term excluded from the 1964 Act. [77]

Title II case law Edit

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) Edit

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the law's constitutionality, but did not settle all the legal questions surrounding it.


The Irish US senator who served three states and (almost) fought a duel with Lincoln

In a year when elections and politics are foremost in peoples' minds, it is worth remembering the amazing career of Shields (May 10, 1810 – June 1, 1879), an American politician and United States Army officer, who was born in Altmore, County Tyrone, Ireland.

Shields, a Democrat, is the only person in United States history to serve as a U.S. Senator for three different states.

Shields represented Illinois from 1849 to 1855, Minnesota from 1858 to 1859, and Missouri in 1879.

Read more

The Tyrone-born Shields was the nephew of another James Shields, also born in Ireland, who was a congressman from Ohio. The younger Shields came to the United States around 1826 and settled in Illinois where he studied and later practiced law. In 1839 he was named Illinois State Auditor. He was not the most popular auditor, especially with a Republican rising star, one Abraham Lincoln.

Shields almost fought a duel with Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1842. Wikipedia noted that Lincoln had published an inflammatory letter in a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, the Sangamon Journal, that poked fun at Shields, the State Auditor.

Lincoln's future wife and her close friend, continued writing letters about Shields without his knowledge. Offended by the articles, Shields demanded "satisfaction" and the incident escalated to the two parties meeting on a Missouri island called Sunflower Island, near Alton, IL to participate in a duel (as dueling was illegal in Illinois).

Lincoln took responsibility for the articles and accepted the duel. Lincoln had the opportunity to choose the weapon for the duel and he selected the cavalry broadsword, as Shields was an excellent marksman.

Just prior to engaging in combat, Lincoln made it a point to demonstrate his advantage (because of his long-arm reach) by easily cutting a branch just above Shields' head. The two participants' seconds intervened and were able to convince the two men to cease hostilities, on the grounds that Lincoln had not written the letters.

On July 1, 1846, Shields was commissioned a brigadier general of volunteers to fight in the Mexican–American War. He served under Zachary Taylor along the Rio Grande.

Following the war in 1848, he ran for the Senate from Illinois. His election was voided by the Senate on the grounds that he had not been a United States citizen for the nine years required by the United States Constitution: having been naturalized on October 21, 1840. He returned to Illinois and campaigned for re-election, and won the special election to replace himself, and was then seated.

In 1855, he was defeated for re-election, so he moved to Minnesota. He was elected as one of the two first Senators from that state, but his term was only from 1858 to 1859, and he was not re-elected.

Read more

Shields then moved to California and served as a brigadier general of volunteers from that state during the American Civil War. He commanded the 2nd Division of the V Corps, Army of the Potomac and was wounded at the Battle of Kernstown on March 22, 1862, but his troops inflicted the only tactical defeat of General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson during the campaign.

In 1866 Shields moved to Missouri, and in 1879, he was elected to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Senator Lewis V. Bogy. He served only three months and declined to run for re-election.

Shields died in Ottumwa, Iowa on June 1, 1879. He is buried in St. Mary's Cemetery, Carrollton, Missouri.

* Originally published in 2015.

Liker du irsk historie? Del dine favoritthistorier med andre historieinteresserte i IrishCentral History Facebook -gruppen.

Registrer deg på IrishCentrals nyhetsbrev for å holde deg oppdatert på alt irsk!


Merrick Garland vows to fight discrimination, domestic extremism as attorney general

Merrick Garland Merrick GarlandSusan Sarandon and Marianne Williamson call for justice in Steven Donziger case Senate panel advances Biden's first group of judicial nominees President Biden can prevent over 4,000 people from being sent back to prison MORE , President Biden Joe BidenJudge agrees to unseal 2020 ballots in Georgia county for audit George Floyd's family to visit White House on Tuesday Biden: US will provide vaccinations for South Korean service members MORE 's pick for attorney general, is vowing to see that the Justice Department roots out domestic political extremism and fights discrimination in the criminal justice system if he is confirmed by the Senate.

"It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the Attorney General is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law," Garland will say as part of his prepared remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. "And it is a fitting time to recognize the more than 115,000 career employees of the Department and its law enforcement agencies, and their commitment to serve the cause of justice and protect the safety of our communities."

The former judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals, whose confirmation hearings before the panel begin this week, has faced intense pressure from progressives to prosecute President Trump Donald TrumpJudge agrees to unseal 2020 ballots in Georgia county for audit Biden: 'Simply wrong' for Trump DOJ to seek journalists' phone records Biden dismisses question on UFOs MORE and his associates for alleged crimes while committed before and during his time in office.

“If we want accountability for Trump and his criminal network, we cannot just depend on Democratic leaders,” a statement from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said earlier this month. “We need to push them. A lot.”

Garland is slated to reference the deadly rioting by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in his opening remarks and to compare the incident to the Oklahoma City bombing in the late 1990s.

"From 1995 to 1997, I supervised the prosecution of the perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government," he will say. "If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 -- a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government."

Garland will also say he plans to address systemic racism in policing and help the Biden administration achieve criminal justice reform.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Department's Civil Rights Division, with the mission "to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society," Garland will tell the committee. "That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and climate change."

The American Civil Liberties Union has also pressed Biden and an upcoming Garland Justice Department to be aggressive in seeking reform.

“Your nomination comes at a moment when America faces an overdue reckoning with racial injustice that can start to be addressed with policies such as adopting a federal use-of-force standard, decriminalizing marijuana, and ending mandatory minimum sentences,” Cynthia Roseberry, the deputy director for policy at the ACLU wrote in a letter to Garland this month, asking him to make sure the Justice Department “will adopt policies to build a more racially just criminal legal system.”

In 2016, Republicans refused to give Garland a hearing as former President Obama's Supreme Court nominee because they argued the winner of that year’s presidential election should fill the vacancy left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.


Se videoen: Amerikaanse senaat doet boekje open over de media mbt corona (August 2022).