The appellant states that congress had overstepped its power according to the constitution. They claimed that the regulation of commerce violated the Fifth Amendment. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. felt that that they should be able to choose how they run their business and be free to choose who they will serve. They also contended that this was a taking of their property and freedom without due process of law.

The US felt that congress did have the power to remove restraints which affect interstate travel. They contend that they are not taking property, but upholding a moral right. They felt that abolishing discrimination is the purpose for the amendment, and such racist views should not affect the interstate tr

In the conclusion of the decision, Chief Justice Clark delivers that the Act applied to the Motel by congress was a just one. He says that the means of the decision only need to be allowed by the Constitution. They could not say that the choices of the Civil Rights Act were not adapted according to the Constitution. The Constitution only requires that they be able to say this to deem an act constitutional. For this reason, the court found in the favor of the United States.

Title II is divided into seven sections. Section one states that all people are entitled to equal enjoyment of any public place without discrimination. Section Two states that any motel, restaurant, motion picture house, or any other business which affects commerce may not discriminate or refuse service based on race or color. Section three defines the phrase “affect commerce.” It states that a motel providing service to transient guest affects commerce. Section four states that discrimination and segregation will be supported if it is a law. Section five states that all people are entitled to be free of discrimination and segregation. Section six and seven are related to previous sections and reinforce former statements. Basically all the titles are saying the same thing and follow the same principles. All people should be treated as equals and should not be discriminated against or segregated. This is a moral right and should have been law long before 1964. The problem lied in the racist attitude and political figures of the past.

The court also found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not deprive Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. of its property or liberty. The Act does not go against the constitution and the court found that the constitution gives Congress the power to protect commerce. When Congress said that the Motel owner’s have no right to pick who they will and wont serve, they were perfectly and fully protected by the Constitution. In the decision the justices also stated that Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. will not suffer any losses by their decision. If anything, allowing blacks to stay will increase the number of customers.

The court took into consideration that the people of the United States have become more and more mobile over the years. They said that people of different races and colors are traveling farther than ever before. The e

Some topics in this essay:
Rights Act, Motel Inc, Title II, Commerce Committee, Atlanta Motel, Justices Georgia, Georgia People, Gibbons Ogden, Justice Clark, Caminetti United, heart atlanta, heart atlanta motel, atlanta motel, civil rights, civil rights act, rights act, atlanta motel inc, motel inc, rights act 1964, court found, act 1964, congress power, interstate travel, district court, act 1964 illegal,