◆ SpookStack

Le a J fron unliwfully interfering with the exercise of civil rights . ~S, yo Negre citizens. ow eae on + u . ZB: t ; I. , IIr. The defendants contend that the complaint fails to state a tlaim i.pon which relief can be grented. They start with the . J -écctrine that the 14th and 15th Amendments apply only to state @¢ tion o action under color of state law. A. This moves them ; to as a matter of statutory construction, | _tau conci:.de/that Congress did not purport to enforce civil J lgsghts against private persons. Moreover,, so they argue, the , tro . interference with ‘interference with 1857 Act applies to/"voting” not to/"registering". B. And, . they say if civil rights acts do authorize enforcement against private persons (not owners or managers of a place of public f : oe accomodation) the statutes are unconstitutional, A. | . (1) The Civil Rights Act of 1957. In the field of civil xights the problem of enforcement is more difficult than the problem of legisiative definition, Tne choice of remedy determines Whether an act of Concress simply declares a right ‘ ey oz carries machinery for meaningful performance of the statu- a ' . tory promise. In the past, an ofvicus hiatus has been the lack of effective sanctions against private persons inter- | - - fering with a citizen's exerciss of a civil right. ‘This lack may be explained by a number of reasons. (a) Con- aat