Why did RP vote against renewing the Civil Rights Act? Someone asked

the fewer Civil Liberties we have.

The answer may lie here:

"The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6)[1] outlawed the requirement that would-be voters in the United States take literacy tests to qualify to register to vote, and it provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible minority voters registered. The Act also provided for Department of Justice oversight to registration, and the Department's approval for any change in voting law in districts that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote in 1964. It was signed in 1965, and signed for a 25 year extension by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006.
While the Act is often considered a landmark in civil rights legislation, it has been criticized by some (especially during talks of renewal in 2006) as a bill that has achieved its goal of minority voting and now has become an overreach of federal power or too demanding of certain states.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

www.ronpaul2008.com
www.teaparty07.com

You guys don't do any research I guess.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

and another view of what he said. Take the time to read the comments. There are some well thought out ones. I know some don't understand RP's view, that is one of the short comings of our man, it takes times to understand him fully.

http://assaultonblacksanity.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-on...

"Civil rights cannot include everything that is done by government which benefits particular groups, individually or collectively.

The whole case for civil rights is that every American is entitled to them. Civil rights are not about doing special things for special groups.

Even when there is a persuasive case for providing special benefits to particular groups -- military veterans, for example -- there is no need to call those things civil rights."

- Thomas Sowell

I believe the act was opposed for preserving group separation by dealing with people in as groups. While Dr. Paul likes all the ideas in the act, I think he tought the bill would make things ultimately worse, not better, by encouraging "group think", "group greviences", and "group punishment", which is exactly what we have today.

Interesting to look up who voted against the original Act, including:

Al Gore Sr.
Barry Goldwater
Robert Byrd

It's always been telling to me that we, as a country, moved immediately from legally enforcing (Jim Crow, etc.) segregation to banning it--with no intervening period of letting people work it out through peaceful, voluntary means. I think many people have a lot of trouble getting past the idea that every act (of any controversy) must be either mandatory or forbidden. Maybe it comes from childhood: must eat vegetables, must not stick finger in electrical outlet.

Period.

I'm sure there was a "Constitutional" argument of some kind, but an off the beaten path vote like that does call for a detailed explanation to help avoid inevitable misrepresentations.

I'm sure Ron Paul is against a few private corporations having a totally closed, non-transparent choke-hold monopoly over the exercise of counting all the votes too. Getting rid of these damn E-Voting machines would represent a huge civil rights act in of itself.

...if it is, it is probably because the current Civil Rights act is deceptively named, in that it forces private businesses to do business with people they don't wish to. If a person wants to bar blacks or whites from their store, they should be able to. We can despise them for that decision, but we only have the right to punish them by refusing to do business with them. No one should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to.

Possibly because voting on the civil rights act would say that our rights come from the government. I am fairly sure that Ron Paul believes in inalienable rights which mean our rights come from our Creator. There is a huge difference between the two.

Government continually demonstrates their ability to take or give rights to certain groups of people. With inalienable rights from the Creator we are individuals and not divided into groups.

The government actually creates racism with its policy of dividing people into groups and not seeing them as individuals. (my opinion)

I am not an expert so you may want to go to Ron Pauls website and read up on this issue and his position on it. Live free and prosper!

Rights are individual, not group. Every individual has the same inalienable rights, some of which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but basically we don't get them from laws, we have them.

No Civil Rights Act required.

IMissLiberty

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

Or look around in here somewhere:

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm