Rand Paul: I Support the Civil Rights Act

Rand Paul, Facebook photo

/ Rand Paul

Updated at 6:17 p.m. ET

Responding to scrutiny over whether he supports government protections against racial discrimination in private businesses, Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul released a statement today making clear he supports the Civil Rights Act and would not support any efforts to repeal or change it.

"I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation," Paul said in the statement. "Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

He added: "Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act first came into question during an interview last month with the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of teling private business owners -- I abhor racism... I do believe in private ownership."

His position received more scrutiny yesterday after he explained his position on NPR and then danced around the question of a private company's right to discriminate during an appearance on MSNBC.

His Democratic opponent in the race, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, said on MSNBC Wednesday afternoon that Paul has said he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today echoed Paul's remarks that there's no need to revisit the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act.

"I think the issues that many fought for in the 50's and 60's were settled a long time ago in landmark legislation, and discussions about whether or not you support those shouldn't have a place in our political dialogue in 2010," Gibbs told reporters.

UPDATE: This year was not the first time Paul has expressed his opinion that private businesses should be free to discriminate if they choose to do so. A Kentucky political blog points to a letter to the editor Paul sent in 2002 to the Bowling Green Daily News about the Federal Fair Housing Act.

"Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly," Paul wrote. "Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not."

Meanwhile, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, released a statement today calling Paul's remarks "deeply troubling."

"Rand Paul's comments are inconsistent and based on his earlier remarks, there is doubt about whether or not he is truly committed to preserving civil rights legislation," she said.

Rand Paul to Dems: Please Bring Obama to Kentucky
Paul: Tea Party Ready to "Flex Some Muscle"

Paul's full statement is below:

I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.

My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.

The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.

This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it.

These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.

Results from Tuesday's races:

Roundup: All Winners and Losers
Specter Falls in Pa. Dem Primary to Joe Sestak
Rand Paul Wins Kentucky GOP Primary
Blanche Lincoln, Bill Halter Headed for Run-Off
Dem Wins Special Election for Murtha's Seat

Analysis:

The Surprises From Tuesday's Primaries
Specter's Loss Goes Beyond Anti-Incumbent Mood
Where do Tuesday's Winners Go from Here?
Who Had the Better Spin?

[melpol1]

People of color dislike Rand Paul, they feel that he is a stealth racist and his civil rights policies are divisive. They are not alone, the owners of MSM will never accept Paul, they want peace not a racial war.

[fiendishone101]

omigosh! is there a cardiologist in the room? all these bleeding hearts need immediate attention. Look, folks, let's pretend you are going to watch a football game at a place that holds 20,000 fans. 10,000 fans are raiders fans, wearling black and silver. 9,999 fans are jets fans, and then there's you, and you have all green. if you walk into the wrong section of the stadium, and all you see is black and silver, you best be moving before you become black and blue. People are different--it's a fact. And people automatically migrate to those that more similar to themselves. And when there is a large enough mass of one type of group, the other group is in danger due to mob mentality. It is human nature. You can't change it by passing a bill. So, those that think you are free from racism, you better examine yourself a little more closely. Because you aren't. You just don't understand what it means.
For those that decried Ky choosing a senator, and for berating April for voting for him, I would like to know why KY has to vote for the senator that you want? What narcisstic right do you have to demand that Kentuckians vote for a moderate? If they wanted a moderate to be their voice, they would have chosen a moderate. Why do you think you have the choice? It's none of your business. If you don't like it, vote in a democrat liberal. But keep your nose out of KY politics. Unless you want to move there and vote. Otherwise, none of your business.
And, lastly, Rand Paul was not saying that discrimination is good. He is saying that govt is too big. I don't want to live in a nanny state. Most of you don't either. But you keep on voting people in that think you are too stupid to lead your own lives, and left to your own devices will drown yourself in a bucket of mop water. i personally think you have more sense then that. They only thing I decry is your ability to vote the right person(s) into office. I don't think you'll drown in a bucket of mop water, but you have no ability to discern character. And that is troubling.

[bradkt1]

Because he will be voting for the laws that govern us all, that's why. He may not be a racist, but that's not the point. He's sees nothing wrong with interpreting (read limiting) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that it can't reach discrimination by private business that offer services and accommodations to the general public. That issue was decided 46 years ago by Congress and more than 40 years ago by the Supreme Court...

...and the rest of us aren't going back there.

[fiendishone101]

oh, brad, are you going to cede your right to vote for your senator to the voters of other states? The idea of having a senator is for the guy to represent the people of his state, right? Who are you going to vote for in your state? Are you sure that the voters in the other states are okay with your choice? Come on, brad, grow up. Kentucky doesn't have to clear anything with you or anybody else in this nation. I am sorry your liberal hopes are dashed, but accept it and move on. If he sucks as a senator, hopefully Kentucky will show him the door. Until then, live with it. Like they will live with your choices. Grow up.

[april_cozen]

lol...i must have provoked the thought police--unlike you sheep, i caused a stir by not lining up behind the liberal shepherd. LOL! Almost all my posts have been pulled...even the nice ones...

[tmittelstaed]

"...it's none of your business who we voted for in our state..."

Yes it is you redneck. He's running for US Senator so if he wins he will be making laws that affect the entire country not just KY.

If he is not in favor of government telling private business owners that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race then he's a racist, pure and simple. Saying that he's not going to support repeal of the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same thing as saying he supports the Federal government telling private employers they may not discriminate on the basis of race.

What exactly do you think the Civil War was all about? It was exactly about the federal government telling the private plantation owners that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race. But I suppose we should expect something like this out of a KY resident. KY never was able to figure out what side they were on during the Civil War and from the looks of it they still aren't to this day.

[Vet_Turner]

You are fully ignorant of the facts. The Civil War was about slavery. All the revisionism in the world is not going to change that. Or do you believe that the Federal government should let the states decide where there is slavery? Is that what you call taxation without representation?

[april_cozen]

I believe slavery is wrong at any level. But I also believe that states should be allowed to make their own laws without interference from the govt. And during the 1800's, the southern states did not have voice because the population masses were in the north, therefore negating any voice that the south had. Secession was a means of finally getting a voice at the table.

[us_1776]

This teabagger is a racist just like all the other teabaggers. They hide behind weasel words to hide their racism. But if you watch a number of the interviews with these teabaggers it is very clear that the most common underlying theme is racism. Of course that fits right in, in Kentucky.




.

[retm-w]

No more racist then a lot of democrats, wasn't Byrd a grand wizard in the KKK.

[us_1776]

Yeah, back in the 1930's!

I'm talking about TODAY!

[MurdochSucks]

Way to go Kentucky, you elected Rockefeller to be the Republican candidate. If you hate labor laws, and regulations on working conditions, then he's your guy. Women working, you just shouldn't have worn that dress to work. You were asking to be molested and harassed. Children get ready, put down those pesky schoolbooks and make your way to the factory, your 19-hour shift is about to start. Ah, the good ol' days of ideological free market capitalism. Can't get back there fast enough!

[book_of_wally]

Nobody here seems to have heard his statement that he favors segregated lunch counters. LOL!

[longtree-2009]

perhaps rand paul is a closet KKK member or some other white supremist group? could be, sounds like it. he appears to be dancing around the issue and quite well actually.

[stephand]

I watched Paul Rand's interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, and he made a lot more sense than he gets credit for. I think his dad is a little out there, but he is not as 'nuts' as people think. He came across very reasonable with some solid arguments for his point of view. It was pretty clear that he is not the one that is trying to make this an issue - rather it the media trying to look for controversy where there is non.

[sticker9]

@stephand. i disagree. i watched him too on Rachel and he didn't make a solid argument. he wouldn't directly answer the ?s posed to him. if he would have simply said, "yes i believe in some of the civil rights act, but when it comes to private business. i support private business' right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. govt has know right to impose these laws on private business." that would have been a solid, to-the-point, no BS, concise and confident argument. instead he cowered behind his pre-composed statement that tried to slip in the "public" clause of his support for civil rights.

[pragmatist1]

No doubt the scrutiny was being lobbed at him by the opposition trying to discredit him and anyone else who supports him.

[nanc12]

by golfernc-2009 May 20, 2010 3:30 PM EDT

The most racist in the world are Chinese. There are zero blacks
living in China.
------------------------------------

I can't believe I'm wasting my time answering this bigot, but this kind of spewing out garbage and calling it fact really bugs me. It happens every day with Limbaugh, Beck, and every Teabagger meeting. So, here's an actual fact for ya golfernc: "However, the black population is growing rapidly. Since 2003, when China started pouring investments into Africa, there has been a significant movement of Africans in the opposite direction. Guangzhou authorities believe there are now 100,000 Africans from Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Liberia and Mali in the city, and the flow is growing by 30 to 40 per cent annually."