Civil Rights: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-ninth Congress, Second Session, on S. 3296, Amendment 561 to S. 3296, S. 1497, S. 1654, S. 2845, S. 2846, S. 2923 and S. 3170, Part 2
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966 - Civil rights
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action amendment American appear Association Attorney General KATZENBACH believe bill Board called Chairman charged citizens City civil rights Clerk color Commission commissioner committee concerned Congress Constitution County covered criminal defendant denied determine discrimination DISTRICT COURT drawing drawn effect equal evidence exempt exercise fact fair housing Federal Federal court freedom give going Government grand jury indictment individual Judge jurors jury commission jury service Justice legislation live matter means names Negro occupation origin owner persons practice present problem proposed protection provisions qualified question questionnaire race racial real estate reason record reference religion removal residence respect selection sell Senator ERVIN serve statement statute subcommittee suggest Supreme Court thing tion trial United wheel York
Page 995 - Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Page 1525 - Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion,...
Page 1548 - All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety- and happiness.
Page 1343 - Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free ; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.
Page 1524 - It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-thejob training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.
Page 989 - State court, for any cause whatsoever, against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the judicial tribunals of the State, or in the part of the State where such suit or prosecution is pending, any right secured to him by any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States...
Page 1573 - States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.
Page 1133 - States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and. convey real and personal property...
Page 1665 - The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship.