◆ SpookStack

I ’ gy ~) d gress has been reluctant to assert affirmatively’ by legislation its responsibility to protect the privileges and imounities of SN ; . », citizens of the United States, for fear of imperil!n5 s*. Delencad 3 a relationship between the states and the Nation. (b) Courts have narrowly construed criminal sanctions available in Section 241 and 12 . 242 of Title 18. {(¢) Congress and the courts have been severely limited by the doctrine of state action, in spite of the trend : ; 13 . toward an expansive view of what is state action, (da) Congress has been wary of using an equitable remedy in civil rights legislation. The Constitution guarantees an accused in a criminal case the right to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a jury of the vicinage. “Enforcement of civil rights through the use of an injunction and nea 14 the contempt power of the courts would by~pass the jury system, However, in communities hostile to civil rights and resentful against “outside", that is, federal interference, injunctive relief may be the most effective method of enforcing civil rights. , the pros and cons of these and many other issues when? Congress considered /cgese-antric Lace eessiterat oe, “the Administration submitted an omnibus civil rights bill in 1956. The focal -ssues--the contempt power, the jury system, and the . relationship of the states with the Navtion--produced one of the great debates in American parliamentary history. By the time the bill was cut down to a voting rights law, as the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 stat. 634, Congress and the country thoroughly understood the significance of 16 the legislation. Congress had opened the door, then nearly shut, to nationai responsibility for protecting civil rights--created or guaranteed by the Nation-~by injunction proceedings against private persons. Part III of the Administration's bill, as originally proposed, would have authorized the Attorney General to file suit against any