Talk:Ku Klux Klan Act

message: I apologize if this isn't the right place for it, but I was looking up the reference to Hoover saying Liuzzo was using heroin and sitting too close to a black man, this link in particular: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1982&dat=19830321&id=QV1GAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zTENAAAAIBAJ&pg=2477,2441456&hl=en 
but I noticed that if I search for specific sentences of that quote, google only refers back to that same document. In interest of facts and not bias, I want to know if this link is "good enough" to be considered valid, or if there can be some other documents that support this being said that don't refer directly back to that 1983 article.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22but+he+is+well+known+as+a+teamster+strongman%22+liuzzo&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=%22but+he+is+well+known+as+a+teamster+strongman%22+liuzzo&aqs=chrome..69i57.8087j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.68.213 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: A reference that refers only back to itself?

message: I believe this law was and is popularly referred to as the Ku Klux Act rather than the Ku Klux Klan Act.  Am I right?
24.240.37.50 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've done a little work on this article basically by cutting and pasting from the Ku Klux Klan article, which I've been involved in. There are a lot of things that could be done to this article:
* clarifying the names (Force Act, Klan Act, Civil Rights Act) and clearing up the relationship between the 1870 Force Act and the 1871 Klan Act, which I haven't been able to find a good explanation of
* doing something about the history of the Force Act --- not sure to what extent it was really separate legislation
* verifying that the Force Act is what was really used in the Chaney-Goodman-Schwener and Liuzzo cases --- every source just seems to refer generically to "1870 federal civil rights legislation," which makes me uncertain whether they're referring to the Force Act, Klan Act, both, or neither
* explaining in more detail how the heck the law can continue to be used when the Supreme Court basically pulled its teeth in 1882
--Bcrowell 18:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Work needed

message: I added some bits about the statute's history and the effect of the Pape ruling.  Hopefully, this answers Bcrowell's question about modern usage of the statute.  I deleted the bit about the 1882 ruling because it seems to give readers a false impression.  The court didn't declare the statute unconstitutional, it said it applied only to state actors.  This is not groundbreaking.  Instead, I added a sentence or two about the statute's lack of use.  Rebekah Zinn 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added bits

message: There is a rather snarky statement that seems to have made its way into this paragraph:
:Now the statute stands as one of the most powerful authorities with which federal courts may protect those whose rights are deprived. It is most often used by people trying to get out of trouble by suing a politician who is "violating their rights". usually, no rights are being violated.Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides a way individuals can sue to redress violations of federally protected rights, like the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Section 1983 prohibits public sector employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. Section 1983 rarely applies to private employers.
which should probably either be removed or explained.  I am also troubled by the quotation marks around "violating their rights", which doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. --203.6.205.113 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: no rights

message: Leonard W. Levy, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, MacMillan/Professional Books, 1987, notes that the 1871 Civil Rights Act is commonly known as the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, since the thrust of the Act is to enable enforcement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act by countering the KKK. The Ku Klux Klan Act was gutted by the 1875 Cruikshank decision over the 1873 Colfax Courthouse Massacre. While the formal title is 1871 Civil Rights Act, it is commonly called the Ku Klux Klan Act to distinguish it from the 1866 Civil Rights Act which addressed civil rights; the Ku Klux Klan Act addressed conspiracy to violate civil rights. In other words, reference to the post-Civil War Civil Right Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act are used in historical and legal writings to distinguish the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 1871 Civil Rights Act. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act

message: Is it really the case that there are two different Acts each of which is separately known as "Enforcement Act of 1871" (and indeed also as "Civil Rights Act of 1871")? How can anyone reading a discussion possibly know which of the two Acts is meant when the shared name is used? jnestorius(talk) 12:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate names 

message: re: "post-Antebellum South Carolina", where "Antebellum South Carolina" was an internal link to another Wikipedia article. I moved the link to the --See other-- section and removed "post-Antebellum". (1) The expression "post-Antebellum South Carolina", which means "South Carolina after-before the Civil War", is, at best, awkward both in syntax and semantics, as an expression, as a reference, and as a link. Prefixing a link with the term "post-" is particularly problematic. (2) The article on "Antebellum South Carolina" tells us that the period after the Antebellum period was the Civil War itself, not Reconstruction, which is the appropriate period for this article. Thus, the temporal reference of "post-Antebellum South Carolina" is incorrect. (However,) the article "Antebellum South Carolina" does add context for the reader, as the editor intended. For this reason, I did not delete the link but instead moved it to an appropriate section. Belastro (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: "post-Antebellum South Carolina" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Second Enforcement Act of 1871. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615100827/http://lmsd.org/documents/news/100503_l3_report.pdf to http://lmsd.org/documents/news/100503_l3_report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved  — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Third Enforcement Act →  – WP:COMMONNAME; see 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act section above Zoozaz1 talk 14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Is this in fact the common name? It's been referred to as the KKK Act in media recently, but "Third Enforcement Act" seems to return more hits than "Third Ku Klux Klan Act", and the other two enforcement acts are also called KKK acts, so if changed we would probably want to name to "Third Ku Klux Klan Act" rather than just "Ku Klux Klan Act": [1] [2] Chillabit (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look on Google Trends, it seems that the KKK act is much more common. I think it's more helpful to look for number of hits with the search in quotation marks (which ensures that the searched words are together), and doing that turns up significantly more hits for the Ku Klux Klan Act. Also, this source exlicitly states that the Ku Klux Klan act is "the third of a series of increasingly stringent Enforcement Acts," so I don't think its necessary to specific third KKK act in the title. Zoozaz1 talk 15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 February 2021 

message: Surrounding of Biden bus by Trump supporters. Lawsuit brought in June 2021. Wikipietime (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas bus incident, Trump supporters 

message: There is a new lawsuit for Ku_Klux_Klan_Act#Use_during_and_after_presidency_of_Donald_Trump:  --Trougnouf (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Vindman vs Trump lawsuit 

message: In an article published earlier this year in the California Law Review (Alexander A. Reinert, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation, 111 Cal. L. Rev. 201 (2023)), Professor Alexander Reinert exposes an omission that took place in 1875 as the first volume of revised federal statutes was being compiled by the Reviser of Federal Statutes. It appears that sixteen words that appeared in the original text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (that is now codified at 42 USC 1983), between the words "shall" and "be," i.e., the Notwithstanding Clause, was improperly excised from the now codified statute without Congressional authorization. In this outstanding and highly impactful law review article Professor Reinert details the mechanics of the improper excision, and opines on what it means for the quaified immunity doctrine insofar as almost all modern case law construing 42 USC 1983 has been construing the statute in the absence of the Notwithstanding Clause, and that the Notwithstanding Clause draws into question the propriety of Supreme Court decisions upholding qualified immunity, especially in light of the importance of statutory text in modern statutory construction. 
I note that the article herein states that the statute has only undergone "minor changes" over the years, and I question that conclusion in light of the Reinert article and in the absence of a citation to any legislative enactments actually amending the Civil Rights Act of 1871. TJHillgardner (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unthorized excision of the Notwithstanding Clause 

message: In legal papers, this is referred to as the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
It was never widely known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. By some counties in South Carolina, it was known as the KuKlux Act. I object, and find your revisions offensive and misleading. Msmarytalt (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is with your Erroneous  Name? 

message: Need to add Cervini v. Cisneros (Trump Train lawsuit) to the jurisprudence section."Plaintiffs asserts...that Defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1."  Trial is set for April 22, 2024.[ Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cervini v. Cisneros''