◆ SpookStack

~ fron unliwfully interfering with the sxercise of civil rights ae “A, by Negre citizens. le er cama 1 I. ‘ III. The defendants contend that the complaint fails to state a siaim t.pon which relief can he grenced. They start with the - écatrine that the 14th and 15th BRmerdments apply only to state + zetzon o:: action under color of state law. A. This moves them as a matter of statutory construction, tc. concl.dejthat Congress did not purport to enforce civil ‘rights against private persons. Moreover, so they argue, the interference with ‘interference with 1057 Act applies to/"voting"™ not to/"registering". B. And, ‘they s52y, L£ civil rights acts do authorize enforcement against private persons (not owners or mMenacers of a place of public accommodation) the statutes are unconstitutional, A. (1) The Civil Rights Act of 1957. In the field of civil rignts the problem of enforcement is more difficult than the problem of legislative @efinition. Tne choice of remedy determines whether an act of Congress simply Geclares a right. or carries machinery for meaning=ul performance of the statu- . tory promise. In the past, an obviews hiatus has been the eck of effective sanctions against private persons inter- fering with a citizen's exercise of a civil right. This lack mey be explained by a number of reasons. (a) con- we