Your question has been answered pretty well, but I want to give a more broad answer.
The vast majority of legislation coming out of the federal government violates the Constitution.
Believe it or not, the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to make laws regarding any subject it decides. Social engineering, which civil rights laws are, clearly have no real authorization from the Constitution.
But it doesn’t matter. We, as a citizenry, have accepted this regular violation of the Constitution as the norm, and so it becomes pretty much useless. It sets up what the federal government can and cannot regulate - but if they just blatantly ignore that, by stretching the meaning of the commerce clause beyond what anyone could possibly believe is valid, and no one does anything about it then the Constitution goes out the window and all of the restrictions on federal power with it. Hence our current state of affairs, with the federal government meddling in everything, and spending ridiculous amounts of money.
The way it was meant to work was that when the government overstepped it’s bounds, we would hunt them down and kill them. Sounds extreme, doesn’t it? But there’s really no other guard against the inevitability towards government encroachment on rights, bloat, and increased power.
It’s an interesting point to make, but IMO sounds more like a Great Debate post than a GQ one. (Both Bricker and I would, I’m sure, like to make quite different comments on the position you’ve taken here.)
Mods, may I suggest that the thread be moved to GD? The question has been answered, to the extent that a GQ-style answer can be essayed. But I think it clearly is striking a chord with many of us that makes us noodge towards GD-type opinion posts in GQ. Rather than have all of us fight that urge, I’d rather see the thread itself moved to where it can be properly debated.