Talk:Ku Klux Klan Act

A reference that refers only back to itself?
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)

Untitled
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)dogcanteen

Work needed
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: --Bcrowell 18:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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

This article is incomplete. The KKK Act created several different statutes that still exist (although many were struck down as unconstitutional, see United States v. Harris). Important Supreme Court cases have involved the other sections of the Act, including Bray v. Alexandria Womens Clinic and United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Scott. The article makes it seem that 42 USC 1983 is the only product of the Act. I agree that it is the most important product, but it is not the same. I disagree with the commentor who said that there is too much history. Although the history of the Act has become somewhat irrelevant to 42 USC 1983, it is still deeply important to the other areas of the statute. This statute was also one of the first big "Reconstruction Congress Statutes" that radically changed the federal/state relationship by enforcing the 14th Amendment and altering the legal culture of the US. ACE603

Added bits
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)

Too much history
The history of the Civil Rights Act is fascinating, but the entry contains so much history that a reader could get the impression that this law is purely a historical relic. It's not a relic. On the contrary, it's used all the time. I am an attorney whose practice consists almost entirely of suing city and state officials using this statute. The discussion omits a fact of enormous importance to both attorneys and their clients--namely that if you win the lawsuit, the government is required to pay your attorneys fees. This is what makes civil rights lawsuits feasible and a more powerful remedy than suing under state law.

The discussion of the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Force Act confuses the subject. They are entirely separate statues. I suggest that the section entitled "Later Use" be renamed to "Current Uses," be expanded to explain how ordinary people benefit from the Civil Rights Act today, and that it be moved higher up.

no rights
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)

1871 Ku Klux Klan Act
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)

Duplicate names
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)

re: "post-Antebellum South Carolina"
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)

External links modified
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)

Requested move 17 February 2021

 * 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)

Third Enforcement Act → Ku Klux Klan Act – WP:COMMONNAME; see 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act section above  Zoozaz1   talk   14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jerm (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support — proposed title beats the current title on recognizability, naturalness, and precision criteria of WP:AT. Levivich harass/hound 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also support "Civil Rights Act of 1871" per below links, but I think KKK Act is more common in 2021 per Google Trends . Levivich harass/hound 03:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been looking through some Reconstruction books for the History section:
 * Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019), W. W. Norton, p. 122: "The third, entitled an Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment but popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871..."
 * Henry Louis Gates Jr., Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow (2019), Penguin Books (NYT 100 Notable Books of 2019), p. 31: "In United States v. Reese (1876), the court struck down key sections of the Enforcement Act of May 1870 ... In United States v. Harris (1883), the court struck down a key section of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871..."
 * Allen C. Guelzo, Reconstruction: A Concise History (2018), Oxford, p. 133: "...third Enforcement Act, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act..."
 * Richard White (historian), The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896 (Oxford History of the United States) (2017), Oxford, p. 190: "A Senate investigation of Southern violence in 1871 produced a second Enforcement Act, and a special congressional session that spring yielded the Ku Klux Klan Act..."
 * Heather Cox Richardson, West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War (2008), Yale (a WSJ bestseller), p. 110: "...Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871..." Levivich harass/hound 04:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm suspicious of whether this is the common name just because of some recent news articles. I also disagree with that it's more natural or precise. There are three Ku Klux Klan Acts, so the proposed title is actually not precise at all (I'd prefer "Third Ku Klux Klan Act" as a compromise per Chillabit, but still not a fan). As for naturalness, the act is obviously referred to as the Third Enforcement Act in scholarly literature and is a normal English phrase so I struggle to see how one is more natural than the other. Personally, I would prefer we wait until the end of this news cycle to see how usage has changed. There is obviously political and monetary value in a news publication using "Ku Klux Klan Act" when the cause of action is used against unpopular politicians, so I would be surprised if usage has actually changed. My current belief is that we're seeing a spike in usage of one name due to the connotations and value as a headline. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "Civil Rights Act of 1871" and "Ku Klux Klan Act" were the common name long before this news cycle:         ngram. Levivich harass/hound 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * GScholar search results for intitle:"Ku Klux Klan Act" (20 results and notice none of the titles specify "first", "second", "third", and none call them the "KKK Acts" plural) vs. Civil Rights Act of 1871 (30) vs. Third Enforcement Act (none). Levivich harass/hound 03:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that no one calls it the Ku Klux Klan Act or even that this is the ideal title, I'm saying that simply citing COMMONNAME isn't meaningful because there is more than one common name. To quote that policy some topics have multiple names....When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus Most of the articles you link provide multiple different names for the act, and looking through sources (more than just titles) shows that across time authors refer to it by multiple different names (including "Third Enforcement Act"). I'm open to renaming the article and would support "Civil Rights Act of 1871"; my problem is that COMMONNAME isn't a magic wand we can wave to rename anything based on a recent spike in Google searches. I never disputed that Ku Klux Klan Act is more recognizable, but COMMONNAME is more than just recognizability. That's why I disputed the other naming criteria you brought up. In that regard, "Civil Rights Act of 1871" is perhaps the best of the three options. It is precise in uniquely identifying this act. It is also at least as natural and recognizable as the other options. It also beats out the other options on the consistency prong as it would follow the same scheme as all but one of the acts at Civil Rights Act, namely Civil Rights Act of 1875, Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968, Civil Rights Act of 1990, and Civil Rights Act of 1991. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last point is why I think KKK Act is better. There are more better-known Civil Rights Acts (with 1964 being the big one). But this is "the" KKK Act (even though technically there are two others). "Civil Rights Act" is the 1964 Act. "Ku Klux Klan Act" is the 1871 Act. That's why I think KKK Act is more precise and recognizable. But bottom line, either one is better than the current. Levivich harass/hound 05:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either KKK Act or Civil Rights Act of 1871; both are much more common than "Third Enforcement Act" per NGRAMS. Although historically "Civil Rights Act of 1871" has been more common in print sources, KKK Act is a distinctive name that helps distinguish it from other civil rights legislation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The unthorized excision of the Notwithstanding Clause
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)

What is with your Erroneous Name?
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)

Cervini v. Cisneros
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.[ [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)