DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965 | Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1123

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965

Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1123

1964]     STATE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES     1123

   This conclusion may be bolstered by the decision in the Continental Air Lines case discussed previously. In that case Continental argued that, "Federal law has so pervasively covered the field of protecting people in interstate commerce from racial discrimination that the States are barred from enacting legislation in this field."182 The Supreme Court's answer to this was that, "To hold that a state statute identical in purpose with a federal statute is invalid under the Supremacy Clause, we must be able to conclude that the purpose of the federal statute would to some extent be frustrated by the state statute."183 The court went on to say that this was not true in the case before it. It insisted that the state's antidiscrimination laws were neither superseded nor pre-empted by any federal act.184
   Similarly, in the Bob-Lo Excursion Co. case the Supreme Court insisted that the application of Michigan's antidiscrimination laws to the international carrier involved was not "out of harmony, much less inconsistent, with our federal policy in the regulation of commerce between the two countries."185 That case also stressed the fact that there was no national interest which overrides the interest of Michigan in forbidding such discrimination.186 As a result, the Court sustained Michigan's effort to apply its statute to a business engaging in international commerce.
   Prior discussion should clearly indicate that in absence of any future action by the federal government that is inconsistent with state antidiscrimination legislation, or that evidences an intent to exclude such state legislation, the states can apply such provisions to businesses that are a part of or substantially affect interstate commerce.

VII. WHAT CAN LOCAL COMMUNITIES DO?

   If the General Assembly does not adopt the type of legislation suggested in this article, what can our local communities do? Can they enact the kinds of substantive provisions proposed here? The answer to this question involves an assessment of the powers delegated by the General Assembly to Iowa cities and towns.
   Section 366.1 of the Iowa Code provides as follows:

   Municipal corporations shall have power to make and publish, from time to time, ordinances, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, for carrying into effect or discharging the powers and duties conferred by this title, and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the safety,
________________________

182 Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Continental Air Lines, 372 U.S. 714, 722 (1963).
183 Ibid.
184 Id. at 722-25.
185 Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 37 (1948).
186 Id. at 40.

Saving...

1964] STATE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES 1123 This conclusion may be bolstered by the decision in the Continental Air Lines case discussed previously. In that case Continental argued that, "Federal law has so pervasively covered the field of protecting people in interstate commerce from racial discrimination that the States are barred from enacting legislation in this field."182 The Supreme Court's answer to this was that, "To hold that a state statute identical in purpose with a federal statute is invalid under the Supremacy Clause, we must be able to conclude that the purpose of the federal statute would to some extent be frustrated by the state statute."183 The court went on to say that this was not true in the case before it. It insisted that the state's antidiscrimination laws were neither superseded nor pre-empted by any federal act.184 Similarly, in the Bob-Lo Excursion Co. case the Supreme Court insisted that the application of Michigan's antidiscrimination laws to the international carrier involved was not "out of harmony, much less inconsistent, with our federal policy in the regulation of commerce between the two countries."185 That case also stressed the fact that there was no national interest which overrides the interest of Michigan in forbidding such discrimination.186 As a result, the Court sustained Michigan's effort to apply its statute to a business engaging in international commerce. Prior discussion should clearly indicate that in absence of any future action by the federal government that is inconsistent with state antidiscrimination legislation, or that evidences an intent to exclude such state legislation, the states can apply such provisions to businesses that are a part of or substantially affect interstate commerce. VII. WHAT CAN LOCAL COMMUNITIES DO? If the General Assembly does not adopt the type of legislation suggested in this article, what can our local communities do? Can they enact the kinds of substantive provisions proposed here? The answer to this question involves an assessment of the powers delegated by the General Assembly to Iowa cities and towns. Section 366.1 of the Iowa Code provides as follows: Municipal corporations shall have power to make and publish, from time to time, ordinances, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, for carrying into effect or discharging the powers and duties conferred by this title, and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the safety, ________________________ 182 Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Continental Air Lines, 372 U.S. 714, 722 (1963). 183 Ibid. 184 Id. at 722-25. 185 Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28, 37 (1948). 186 Id. at 40.