By Todd Purdum
A most sensible Washington journalist recounts the dramatic political conflict to move the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislation that created sleek the US, at the 50th anniversary of its passage
It was once a turbulent time in America—a time of sit-ins, freedom rides, a March on Washington and a governor status within the schoolhouse door—when John F. Kennedy despatched Congress a invoice to bar racial discrimination in employment, schooling, and public lodgings. numerous civil rights measures had died on Capitol Hill long ago. yet this one was once diverse simply because, as one influential senator placed it, it was once “an notion whose time has come.”
In a robust narrative layered with revealing element, Todd S. Purdum tells the tale of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, recreating the legislative maneuvering and the larger-than-life characters who made its passage attainable. From the Kennedy brothers to Lyndon Johnson, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, Purdum indicates how those all-too-human figures controlled, in precisely over a 12 months, to create a invoice that brought on the longest filibuster within the background of the U.S. Senate but was once finally followed with overwhelming bipartisan help. He inspires the excessive function and occasional dealings that marked the construction of this enormous legislation, drawing on large archival study and dozens of latest interviews that carry to existence this sign fulfillment in American history.
Often hailed because the most crucial legislations of the earlier century, the Civil Rights Act stands as a lesson for our personal bothered occasions approximately what's attainable whilst persistence, bipartisanship, and decency rule the day.
Read Online or Download An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 PDF
Similar civil rights books
Are the perspectives of Latinos and African american citizens underrepresented in our federal government? For that topic, what does it suggest to be represented equitably? instead of taking without any consideration a unmarried solution to those complicated questions, John Griffin and Brian Newman use various measures of political equality to bare which teams get what they need from executive and what components result in their successes.
Writing of their well-known Harvard legislations assessment article of 1890, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren asserted what many have one in every of the main adored American values: the best to be not to mention. but during this post-9/11 international, own privateness is extra threatened than ever. This publication offers scholars and normal readers a entire assessment of privateness in modern the USA.
Regardless of the profits made by way of homosexual rights routine through the global, there are nonetheless parts during which homosexuals and their relationships are specific as immoral and felony. Sociolegal keep an eye on of Homosexuality, a complete, updated exam of governmental and non secular response to problems with sexual orientation in areas - corresponding to Asia and the center East - hardly ever coated in English language guides, comprises: a sampling of overseas laws, either proscriptive and liberal the consequences of fundamentalist non secular hobbies new clinical details in regards to the foundation of sexual orientation, and masses extra!
All through American historical past, the govt. has used U. S. citizenship and immigration legislations to guard privileged teams from much less privileged ones, utilizing citizenship as a “legitimate” proxy for in a different way invidious, and sometimes unconstitutional, discrimination at the foundation of race. whereas racial discrimination is never legally appropriate this present day, profiling at the foundation of citizenship remains to be mostly unchecked, and has in reality arguably elevated within the wake of the September eleven terror assaults at the usa.
Additional info for An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
However, it is not the practices of investigation and interrogation that I am interested in here. It is the nondisruptive effect of these homosexual members of the armed forces prior to the discovery of their sexual identity that I am primarily concerned with in this case study. My analysis focuses on the MoD’s description of the ‘covert homosexual’. 13 This variety of ‘covert’ homosexual exists alongside the MoD’s homosexual incompatibility discourse. The ‘covert homosexual’ was the variety of homosexual most likely to inhabit this environment, rather than the others listed in the HPAT’s taxonomy, ‘the flamboyant homosexual’ or the ‘homosexual activist’.
There are two documents that are of central importance to the analysis. These are the 1995–6 House of Commons Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill Report1 and the 1996 Report of the Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team (HPAT)2 which resulted from the MoD’s internal review of the exclusion policy. These two reports are crucial to this case study since the evidence collated within the HPAT report was quoted as being the decisive factor in the 26 Military men decision by the 1996 House of Commons Select Committee to propose to Parliament that the homosexual exclusion policy in armed forces should be retained.
This chapter also includes an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights decision on 27 September 1999, where the UK was found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) by banning homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. In Chapter 2, ‘Authenticity, evasion and the unknowable homosexual’, themes such as passing, information control and clandestine homosexuals, that were introduced in Chapter 1, are again the focus of attention. However, in this chapter it will be demonstrated that the capacity of homosexuals for evading recognition by controlling identity information is both the homosexual’s source of protection and the source of his or her non-recognition and hence exclusion from legal protection within UK immigration and asylum procedures.