Civil Rights Legislation in the US

Despite mountains of paper, oceans of ink, and general support for civil rights, civil rights legislation remains controversial. This article summarizes the key parts of the current US civil rights legislation, including the Constitutional basis and disparate impact. It touches on the relationship between morality, religion, and rights. Finally, the article addresses some key ideas in the Bible about civil rights and their source.

By Mark D. Harris, MD, MPH, MBA, MDiv, ThM, PhD, DBA

What are civil rights?

A common definition is “Civil rights refer to the fundamental rights and freedoms granted to individuals by a government and are protected by law.”[1] This definition invites several questions.

1. What are rights? Things that people are allowed to do? Things that people are allowed to abstain from doing? How do rights interact between individuals and groups?
2. What rights are fundamental? The US Declaration of Independence includes the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are there others? The US Supreme Court and International Courts have interpreted fundamental rights broadly. For example, the term civil rights now includes a right to privacy, which was never mentioned in any of the founding documents but came from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976).
3. What are freedoms? The ability to do whatever you want? The ability to do whatever God created you to do? Who decides, the individual, the society, or someone or something else?
4. Who “grants” civil rights? God? The king? In a government of, by, and for the people, wouldn’t the people be “granting” such rights to themselves?
5. What is “government?” Definitionally, it is “the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.” What are the jurisdictional limitations? Does the US government “grant” civil rights to residents of Mauritania? Is the United Nations a government, and does it grant civil rights?
6. Who are individuals? Citizens? Visitors? Men? Women? Members of a certain race or socioeconomic class? No civilization in history has granted equal rights to every member of society. No society in history has ever held that every person should have exactly equal civil rights (criminals and the physically incompetent often have their rights limited by governments). Ancient civilizations from Rome to Xian to Tenochtitlan have held the emperor to be divine, thereby exercising rights far beyond anyone else. In Hammurabi’s Babylon, the Amelia (elites) had far greater protections than the Mushkenum (freemen) and the Ardu (slaves).
7. Which law protects civil rights? English common law? Muslim Sharia law? Christian canon law? Hindu Manu Smriti? Buddhist Sangha regulations? Something else?
8. Should certain groups be protected? If so, which ones? How do you define these groups? Under Sharia, Christians and Jews are dhimmi, not enjoying the same rights and liberties as Muslims. Under the Hindu caste law, each caste has more rights than those below.
9. What is the relationship between civil rights law and other categories of law, such as civil liberties law? Does a statute or regulation requiring people to use preferred pronouns in addressing a transgender individual violate the US Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech?

The above is but a small sample of questions about civil rights. If the people of a society fail to answer these questions, only those who care enough to answer them will hold power. If the people of a society answer these questions based purely on self-interest, they will soon be slaves.

The Roman poet Juvenal (55-128) wrote in his book Satires that all an emperor needed to do to quiet his population was to provide them with “bread and circuses,” that is, food and entertainment. Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck introduced the modern welfare state in Germany in the 1880s to promote social stability. President Franklin Roosevelt in the USA did the same. The people who give up freedom to get bread and circuses from a bloated government are the same ones who relinquish their liberties to promote an unfair system of racial and sexual quotas and call it “civil rights”.

What is the history of civil rights legislation?”

The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery (1865), and the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the Equal Protection Clause, established birthright citizenship and the privileges thereto (1868). The first major law in the US regarding civil rights was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The purpose of the law was to:

1. Define American citizenship
2. Identify the rights that come with this citizenship
3. Establish the unlawfulness of depriving any person of citizenship rights “on the basis of race, color, or prior condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.”

One of the key provisions of this law was “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

Since the bill was passed in 1866, it has been illegal in the United States to discriminate in employment, housing, and related areas. This Act was reenacted as Section 18 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 and later in 1871. Simultaneously, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to vote (1870). The Civil Rights Act of 1875 attempted to stop discrimination in public transportation, accommodations, and jury service. The 1875 Act used the 14^th Amendment to provide its constitutional justification, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause cannot be applied to private persons or corporations (1883). Related laws include four Reconstruction Acts and three Enforcement Acts.

The issue of civil rights again flared during the Great Depression and World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) issued Executive Order 8802, which prohibited discrimination in the defense industry, including many private companies. Truman supported civil rights and issued Executive Order 9980, which prohibited discrimination in the armed forces.  The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) made school segregation illegal, but the ruling had to be enforced by Federal power. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a revolutionary piece of legislation. Congress claimed constitutional authority for the law based on:

1. Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8)
2. Equal Protection (14^th Amendment)
3. Voting Rights protection (15^th Amendment)

The 1875 Civil Rights Act was declared unconstitutional since Congress used only the Equal Protection clause of the 14^th Amendment to justify it constitutionally. However, in a landmark 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, the US Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to justify regulating agricultural production on individual farms even when those farms did not ship their produce across state lines.[2] Indeed, Farmer Filburn didn’t sell much of his wheat but rather used it to feed his family. Nonetheless, he lost the case and paid a heavy fine. Cowed, other farmers fell in line.

Before long, the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to justify the Federal Government to regulate anything or anyone, irrespective of states’ rights. The US Congress used the Commerce Clause to justify the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The act outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibited employment discrimination, racial segregation in public institutions such as schools, and unequal application of voter registration.

Subsequent civil rights legislation expanded the protected groups to include native Americans and expanded workers’ ability to sue their employers for discrimination. Civil rights law has only grown over time.

What are some major problems with civil rights legislation?

Constitutionality – the following documents provide much of the basis for civil rights laws. Likewise, they can limit federal power regarding civil rights.

1. Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) – the United States Congress shall have power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
2. Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) – “The Congress shall have Power… To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
3. Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment) – “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
4. Voting Rights Clause (Fifteenth Amendment) – “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
5. Tenth Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The case law surrounding these statements is voluminous and shall not be further summarized here. By and large, these cases expand civil rights at the expense of individual freedom. Each justice’s underlying assumptions about what the Constitution is and what it is for play a decisive role in how they rule on cases. Two major schools of thought exist.

1. The Constitution is a living document that meant something different in 18th-century America than it does today. The meaning of the Constitution changes to meet current problems in accordance with current cultural beliefs and the desires of lawmakers.
2. The Constitution is a fixed historical document, which means the same thing in the 21^st century as it did in the 18^th century, though a few historical specifics must be updated. To fundamentally change the meaning of the Constitution, the document itself must be amended through the specified process. Lawmakers and other elites cannot impose laws and regulations that violate the historical meaning of the Constitution.

The first assumption prevailed in the left-wing Roosevelt years (1933-1945), including the Great Depression and World War II, and lasted at least until Reagan appointed Rehnquist as Chief Justice in 1986. Only in the past 30-40 years have justices increasingly espoused the more conservative, second assumption. As human beings and citizens, justices grow out of a cultural milieu, so in general, liberal cultures produce liberal justices…and vice versa.

Prima facie (on the face of it), different decisions by Congress and the Courts would have produced different civil rights legislation, or none at all. The current state of legislation is neither the best possible nor is it fixed in stone. Some of the logic in Supreme Court decisions is weak. Each American needs to learn about our Constitution and pay attention to what happens in the courts.

Disparate Impact

Employment and housing are two areas in which civil rights laws have the most effect. In hiring, for example, a practice of excluding black applicants clearly violates extant law. Not wishing to break the law, businesses use hiring practices that are neutral concerning the protected characteristics of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. However, if the implementation of these neutral practices results in fewer people in the protected group (AKA with a protected characteristic) getting hired compared to those in unprotected groups, the impact of the practice is disparate, and the business is liable. For example, if company ABC refuses to hire ex-convicts, the effect may be that ABC hires fewer blacks since blacks are more likely to be ex-convicts. The government could then fine, sue, or shut down ABC, and potentially jail its leaders, for a violation of civil rights law, even if ABC and its leaders never intended to discriminate against anybody.

Disparate impact thus doesn’t stop with attaining equal opportunity; it requires equal outcomes. The effect is to create a quota system in which people are hired or promoted to maintain ratios acceptable to the government. Suppose ABC was promoting people into four positions from a pool of 20 employee applicants. The 20 applicants included five white males, five white females, five black males, and five black females. The easiest way for ABC to comply with civil rights law is to promote one person from each group. However, since white and male are not protected characteristics, and therefore white males are not a protected class, the government would be equally pleased with one or two black males, one or two black females, one white female, and no white males being promoted. The critical factor for promotion, therefore, is not merit but race and sex.

In his choice of vice president and Supreme Court justice, President Joe Biden announced that he would select a black woman before evaluating all the candidates.[3] Did he know before formal vetting began who the most qualified candidates were? Did he care? Was his priority “making history” and getting votes by appointing people with the right skin color and the right sex? Did he think that skin and sex were the most important factors for America in 2020, even if competence was lacking?

There is a business necessity defense against prosecution under disparate impact. Imagine that ABC is a bus driving company and it requires valid bus driving licenses of all driver applicants as a condition of employment. If fewer blacks who applied had valid bus driving licenses, then fewer blacks would be hired. If the government punishes ABC, as it has done before, ABC could argue in court that a bus driving license was a business necessity for bus drivers. ABC could win, though at crushing costs in legal fees and in reputation. Or they could lose, adding penalties to their other costs. If ABC were a small business, it could just collapse.

Sometimes in public and often in private, proponents of disparate impact argue that preferences for blacks and women now are needed to make up for preferences for whites and men in the past. Many go further, saying that white men have ruined the world since they have been in charge, and it is time for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, especially women, to take over. These arguments are historically illiterate, culturally (religiously) odious, and functionally impracticable. They deserve no more mention.

What is the future of civil rights legislation?

The year 2020, with the challenges of COVID-19, the farcical transgender movement, the ascent of far-left and mentally impaired President Joe Biden, the Cancel Culture, and the riots surrounding the killing of George Floyd, may have been a high-water mark for civil rights, at least culturally, in the United States.[4] The second Presidency of Donald Trump has curbed the abuses of civil rights. Individuals are rejecting many of the pet messages of the movement, in part by voting for conservatives such as Trump in November 2024. Groups like Black Lives Matter have been discredited after using donor money for their leaders’ personal gain.[5] Corporations, known for their cultural cowardice, are getting out of social issues and back to business. Fearing defunding and facing a lack of students, schools are reconsidering their Marxist message. The pendulum seems to be swinging right.

The constitutional basis for much current civil rights legislation is weak, especially as it dictates the actions of private businesses and not just public entities. It is hard to believe that the Framers intended the Federal government to dictate what a single private farmer could grow. It is equally hard to believe that the Federal government could dictate who a private person or group did business with. The Equal Protection Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have been stretched far beyond what Mr. Madison and his colleagues’ descendants envisioned. Under the Tenth Amendment, the Federal government only has limited, enumerated powers. The states have every other power. America has better ways to improve civil rights than the hammer of government action, especially at the federal level. Jim Crow laws are harmful but can be handled by the states.

Disparate impact is a travesty. The burden of proof is not on the one making the allegations, but on the organization or individual defending itself. Good people with good intentions get sacrificed on the altar of equal outcome. As long as intelligence, drive, industry, and courage differ between people, outcomes will not be equal.

While liberals worry that their cherished “advances”, such as abortion, which is considered a civil right for women, are going away, conservatives worry that the pendulum won’t go far enough right and will too soon move left.[6] Conservatives need not worry, for reality always wins in the end. What does our future look like if we change nothing?

1. Abortion, no-fault divorce, anti-family policies, and sexual sin, such as homosexuality and adultery, all damage the traditional family (one man and one woman), which alone can produce offspring.[7] With fewer families comes fewer children and fewer workers. Conservatives have far more children than liberals.[8]
2. Children produced by families require resources, go to school, attend college, get jobs (produce), and consume goods and services for decades after preceding generations have passed away. Historically, they marry. The cycle continues.
3. Older liberals, who often have no children, expect younger adults, likely the children of conservatives, to support them through goods, services, taxes, and programs. Thus, liberals free ride on the years of work and sacrifice that conservatives put into their families.[9]
4. With too few people, supply and demand slump. Technology can’t fill the gap. Robots using artificial intelligence may make the hamburgers, but how many hamburgers does a robot eat?
5. Immigration can’t solve the birth dearth. Over 2/3 of nations on earth, and all the most developed ones, are not producing enough people to maintain their population, much less grow.
6. Left-wing colleges don’t have students because their parents aborted them (or never had them) 20 years earlier.[10] Liberal media don’t have viewers for the same reason. Hollywood can’t find workers to make movies and can’t find theatergoers to watch them. Left-wing corporations lack customers and employees.[11] Liberal governments don’t have soldiers, police officers, firefighters, or enough others to defend the country.
7. Slowly at first, and then seemingly in an instant, societies collapse.

While this is a sad forecast of the future, it is entirely avoidable. Math dictates that if a population has more deaths than births, that population will eventually cease to exist. All our prayers, screams, tears, and wishes make no difference. Abraham Lincoln, in his speech at Lyceum, said,

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”[12]

US liberals accuse conservatives of wanting to return to the 1950s, with its supposed oppression of American women. Actually, every successful civilization in world history has been based on successful traditional families, regardless of race, in its civilization. The conservative view is much older than the liberals realize.

In sum, the future of civil rights legislation as we know it is decline. Genuine civil rights, such as those for blacks after the American Civil War, have given way to rights for every vice imaginable. No people can long exalt sin, such as abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism, under the guise of “civil rights,” and hope to prosper.[13] As sure as the sun rises in the morning, if America keeps speeding down the broad, gentle, and easy road, we will end up in the fire. If we continue with the harlot, we will fall into the pit.

If, on the other hand, we return to the Holy Scripture and the One who gave it, America will enjoy a new sunrise. Civil rights, as they should be, will grow. We will have a more just society for everyone in it. Some may argue that some nations are secular and still have strong social cohesion. They mention Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand.[14]  One should notice, however, that all these nations are historically Christian. Further, levels of immigration are low in most of these lands. The examples given of secular social cohesion actually reveal religious, ethnic, and linguistic cohesion.

This article is about civil rights legislation, not civil rights writ large. However, it is appropriate to note the following:

1. Discrimination of any type can be systemic. Just as Christians and Jews in Muslim lands, known as dhimmi, were restricted in diet, clothing, work, marriage, and every area of life, so also slaves (black or otherwise) have been restricted. Such discrimination was a feature of Islamic law.
2. Historical discrimination can create ongoing disadvantages. Even after the slave is released into freedom, poor treatment from others (and oneself) can persist.
3. American law is historically pluralistic. This is a strength of US law, since real change can never come from law, but from a change in the heart.
4. The interpretation of the US Constitution, as well as the Bible and all other documents, has always been contested. In fact, everything has been contested. The right to debate is found in Western civilization, which was guided by Christianity.
5. There is only one correct understanding of Christian scripture (2 Pet 1:20-21). It is our job to find it.
6. Demographic collapse will not occur if we change our ways as suggested in this article. Demographic collapse will occur if we do not.

What does the Bible say?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 9:10). That is, trust in and obedience to the Creator is the beginning of genuine understanding of the world. Without the rock of Holy Scripture guiding our thoughts, words, and actions, we are waves tossed about by the winds of confusion, doubt, and whatever seems to be good at the time. We are a house built on the sand, and when the storm comes, we will soon collapse.

Christian scriptures insist that all men (and women) are equal before God in the following ways:

1. Equal in being human, with body and spirit, birth and death, and everything pertaining.
2. Equal in being created in the image of God.
3. Equal in receiving everything, from life to sustenance to civil rights, from God. The government may be an intermediary, but it ultimately gives us nothing, including civil rights.
4. Equal in being sinners and destined for eternal hell, defined as separation from God.
5. Equal in being eligible to receive temporal and eternal salvation through the work of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Godhead.

These biblical truths provide the philosophical and religious underpinning for the notion that all men are, indeed, created equal. Even if civil rights are desirable, they are not possible without such a foundation. The Western ideas of civil rights did not come from Marx or Darwin; they came from Moses and Paul.

The people of God in the Old Testament, the Hebrews, were to follow God and be an example of His love and glory to every nation on earth. They did not exist purely for themselves, but for Him and for others. Foreigners within Hebrew lands were expected to assimilate in every way into the local culture, including following ritual and dietary laws and having their men circumcised.

In exchange, the native Hebrews treated them with compassion and respect. Foreigners were considered equal to Hebrews, and natives were to love foreigners as themselves (Leviticus 19:33-34). Notwithstanding, certain activities, such as moneylending and Sabbatical year debt cancellation, differed.

Fundamentally, it is the morality of a people that determines their future. John Adams said

“But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[15]

God does not differentiate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, but He hates sin. God, as always, has the last word.

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14.

If we do this, we will live and prosper. Equality will improve, and morning will return to America.

Conclusion

The ideas of the equality of man and civil rights came directly from the pages of the Bible. Civil rights and social justice in general must be a Christian priority. However, such temporal matters can never be the top priority. The first love, priority, focus, and reward of all believers is Jesus Christ (Rev 2:4-5). In their fervent fight for civil rights, as they understand them, people often forget their first allegiance. The African American Democratic Senator Rafael Warnock, who is the pastor of the New Ebenezer Baptist Church, tweeted in April 2021,

“The meaning of Easter is more transcendent than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether you are Christian or not, through a commitment to helping others we are able to save ourselves.”

This statement is heresy. If he really believes it, Pastor Warnock’s salvation is to be doubted, and his congregation has been under a false teacher for two decades. We can only hope that he does not believe what he wrote (and soon deleted) and that his flock has heard and responded to the real gospel.

Life does not have to be a zero-sum game, in which the gain of one is the loss of another. Our priority is not to fight over who gets the biggest piece of pie, but how to work together to make the pie bigger.

Hating political enemies merely incites them to hate you. The cycle repeats over the generations. The past is past, and no current initiatives can make past virtues into vices and past vices into virtues. Forgetting what lies behind, we must press on toward the mark of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Only the work of the Holy Spirit can make this a reality in our hearts and in our land.

This article asks what are civil rights, what is the history of civil rights legislation, and what are problems with that legislation? The weak constitutional basis of extant civil rights law and the (hopefully) well-intended but foolish notions of disparate impact are two major weaknesses. The article discusses the unhappy future of our culture and the current civil rights legislation if we do nothing. Finally, it covers what the Bible says we need to do to secure a brighter future for us all.

[1] https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html.

[2] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5383953-we-have-filed-the-case-that-could-overturn-wickard-and-limit-commerce-clause-powers/.

[3] https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/.

[4] Biology, theology, and history dictate that only two sexes exist, male and female. No volume of screaming, no number of laws, and no amount of oppression can change this. Thus, the transgender movement is a farce. The very idea that a person can define himself or herself independently of physical reality and independently of his or her family, friends, and the larger culture would be laughable in most societies over time. Even in America, we don’t let people define themselves in any way they wish.

[5] https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/blm-finances-under-fire-only-33-of-donations-given-to-charities-as-execs-paid-millions-black-lives-matter-racism-bankruptcy-deficit-fundraising-fundraisers-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-patrisse-cullors-tamir-rice-fraud-scam.

[6] Abortion involves the killing of a child. Progressives might believe that such a killing is a lesser evil than impairing the parents lives, but a child still dies.

[7] Couples of men or women cannot reproduce, defined as creating more humans, even in 2025. Lesbian couples still need sperm from a man to make a child. Adoption is not the same as reproduction.

[8] https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/new-research-conservative-voters-help-with-the-population-problem/.

[9] Free riding occurs when a good or service is produced by some but used by everyone. Those who reap the benefits without producing the good or service are free riders. Aging childless couples will depend on the children of other aging couples to produce goods and services, and thus, in the most important way. are free riding. They contribute during their lives, then die, and never contribute again. Families with children contribute for generations.

[10] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/08/nx-s1-5246200/demographic-cliff-fewer-college-students-mean-fewer-graduates.

[11] America needs workers, not jobs https://www.rbccm.com/en/story/story.page?dcr=templatedata/article/story/data/2025/07/america-needs-workers-not-jobs#:~:text=But%20in%202025%E2%80%94and%20over%20the%20next%20several%20years%E2%80%94America,economic%20data%20in%20the%20months%20and%20years%20ahead.

[12] https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm.

[13] A people that drives men and women apart, discourages marriage, and destroys their own children, if they persist, will cease to exist, much less thrive.

[14] Scandinavia is Global Leader in Social Cohesion, https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/our-projects/gesellschaftlicher-zusammenhalt/project-news/scandinavia-is-global-leader-in-social-cohesion-1#:~:text=Denmark%2C%20Norway%2C%20Sweden%20and%20Finland%20have%20the%20highest,Bertelsmann%20Stiftung%20and%20Jacobs%20University%20in%20Bremen%2C%20Germany.

[15] John Adams – To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 1798.  http://www.constitutiondecoded.com/constitution-blog/john-adams-full-quote.