lot further than the immediate case. During the sixties the civil rights movement encouraged the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act was already in the works due to the decision in Brown. Brown released the flood gates which held back blacks from equal opportunities. Before this decision blacks were in a psychological caste system. Even though they had the “same opportunities” as whites the mere fact that they were forced into separate quarters only thirty years after the release of their enslavement made them feel as if they were in a lower class. A lot of people say that if the blacks feel that way, then that is their own fault. The same people forget that the Constitution is color blind and would not understand why we have to have separate quarters in the first place.After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, case after case was brought before different courts throughout the land to test the limits of the law. In 1972, Moose Lodge No.107 v. Irvis was brought before the Supreme Court. Irvis felt that he should be allowed to join a private club because the liquor licence was in limited supply in the city based on per capita, and the licence is supplied by the state. The government can not sanction racism and, according to Irvis, would be doing so by issuing a liquor licence to Moose Lodge No. 107. The right of a private club to choose its own members is one of the main reasons behind having a private club to begin with. To allow the government to invade the private sectors through an insignificant means was denied and the Supreme Court put their foot down and set some boundaries for civil rights activists. Again in 1984 in Palmore v. Sidoti, we have a case where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will attempt to set some boundaries with bi-racial relationships and the placement of kids affected in the process. The welfare of the child has always been the courts number one priority when kids are involved. When Linda Sidoti...
