• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

disneydude said:
You are correct....but that isn't really the issue. The commerce clause is yet another way that the states are bound by the Federal Constitution. The end result is that businesses are not free to discriminate just because they want to.
Click to expand...

Lol! You do realize we are talking about private property, right? You know, property that is owned by citizens of the country. This is has nothing at all to do with states being bound by the Constitution. How in the hell can use the fact that states are bound to the constitution to bind people to the same rules? Well?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is still crap for two reasons

1. The commerce clause only deals with trade disputes between the listed members

and more importantly...
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. Whether you like it or not (and I'm sure you don't) the Commerce Clause has been loosely interpreted to go beyond that.

2. The commerce clause does not trump the 1st or 13th amendment.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. However, the 1st or 13 Amendment do not trump the Commerce Clause, either. These are separate issues.

I left off the commerce clause argument because frankly it's even dumber.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. I reject Constitutional literalists/strict constructionists, so I doubt you and I will a common frame of reference in which to discuss this issue.
 
Henrin said:
Lol! You do realize we are talking about private property, right? You know, property that is owned by citizens of the country. This is has nothing at all to do with states being bound by the Constitution. How in the hell can use the fact that states are bound to the constitution to bind people to the same rules? Well?
Click to expand...

LOL....you have zero understanding of Constitutional law. Sorry, but to engage in a debate you have to have at least some idea what you are talking about.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, that's not true. Whether you like it or not (and I'm sure you don't) the Commerce Clause has been loosely interpreted to go beyond that.
Click to expand...

Which makes them wrong.

I never said it did. However, the 1st or 13 Amendment do not trump the Commerce Clause, either. These are separate issues.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. You can not hide behind the commerce clause when you are actively violating the 1st and 13th amendment.

In your opinion. I reject Constitutional literalists/strict constructionists, so I doubt you and I will a common frame of reference in which to discuss this issue.
Click to expand...

Why? The reason the words were written does not change and nor does the power behind them. What could possibly be the reason to ignore intent?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
LOL....you have zero understanding of Constitutional law. Sorry, but to engage in a debate you have to have at least some idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You don't have any answers, do you? I have caught both you and the SC in illogical thought and as a supporter of the SC your job is to explain their illogical rulings that I question. The private property of individuals would not fall under the umbrella of the state and therefore you can not use clauses that reference the state when dealing with private property. Private property falls under the rights of the people and as such rules that govern these rights must be followed.

What you don't want to admit is that when they referenced the fourteenth amendment they treated private property that is defined as business as if it is part of the state when it clearly is not.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
You don't have any answers, do you? I have caught both you and the SC in illogical thought
Click to expand...

Can you tell us where the constitution says that SCOTUS is not allowed to use illogical thought in its' rulings?
 
sangha said:
Can you tell us where the constitution says that SCOTUS is not allowed to use illogical thought in its' rulings?
Click to expand...

That is your argument? :lol:
 
sangha said:
That is a question

And I see that, once again, you're unable to answer a simple question
Click to expand...

So what if it is a question? All it does is admit the SC is wrong.
 
sangha said:
Nice dodge

Just shows how you will ignore the constitution when it proves inconvenient to your nonsensical ideas.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that I'm ignoring nothing and I haven't still made one error in arguments.
 
Henrin said:
You mean besides the fact that I'm ignoring nothing and I haven't still made one error in arguments.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring that the constitution says and how it doesn't prohibit decisions that Henrin thinks are based on illogical arguments.
 
sangha said:
You're ignoring that the constitution says and how it doesn't prohibit decisions that Henrin thinks are based on illogical arguments.
Click to expand...

Lol! Care to tell me what I'm ignoring or how the ruling wasn't illogical? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Is that all you got?
Click to expand...

It blows your claim apart

Henrin said:
That is still crap for two reasons

1. The commerce clause only deals with trade disputes between the listed members

and more importantly...

2. The commerce clause does not trump the 1st or 13th amendment.

I left off the commerce clause argument because frankly it's even dumber.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
It blows your claim apart
Click to expand...

I just looked back a few pages and I don't believe I said that their ruling was unconstitutional. I said many times however they were wrong, in which, they are.

How does that post of mine prove you right?

Btw, I consider this argument of yours a diversion tactic.
 
Henrin said:
I just looked back a few pages and I don't believe I said that their ruling was unconstitutional. I said many times however they were wrong, in which, they are.

How does that post of mine prove you right?

Btw, I consider this argument of yours a diversion tactic.
Click to expand...

Sure you did.

You didn't just say that you think their decision was wrong. You said, and I quote

The commerce clause only deals with trade disputes between the listed members
and more importantly...

2. The commerce clause does not trump the 1st or 13th amendment.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS says you're wrong, therefore it is constitutionally sound to not limit the commerce clause to disputes between the listed members.
 
sangha said:
Sure you did.

You didn't just say that you think their decision was wrong. You said, and I quote


SCOTUS says you're wrong, therefore it is constitutionally sound to not limit the commerce clause to disputes between the listed members.
Click to expand...

Nope. That is not how it works. The intent and the power given to the government does not change because the SC says so. They are just wrong and that wrongness needs to be mentioned and known to the entire country.
 
Henrin said:
Nope. That is not how it works. The intent and the power given to the government does not change because the SC says so. They are just wrong and that wrongness needs to be mentioned and known to the entire country.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Please quote where the constitution says that SCOTUS decisions are sometimes unconstitutional?
 
sangha said:
You are wrong.

Please quote where the constitution says that SCOTUS decisions are sometimes unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Since I never made any such claim I have no reason to do as you ask.
 
Henrin said:
Since I never made any such claim I have no reason to do as you ask.
Click to expand...

Sure you have. You said, and I quote:

2. The commerce clause does not trump the 1st or 13th amendment.
Click to expand...

It does. The only way the CC could not sometimes trump the 1st or 13th is if the SCOTUS decisions saying that it could were unconstitutional.

Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?

I'll wait for your expected dodge :coffeepap:
 
sangha said:
Sure you have. You said, and I quote:



It does. The only way the CC could not sometimes trump the 1st or 13th is if the SCOTUS decisions saying that it could were unconstitutional.

Are SCOTUS decisions ever unconstitutional?

I'll wait for your expected dodge :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between legally binding and correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom