"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
Your kidding, right? The dispute on the commerce clause like it is with the welfare clause centers around Hamilton and Madison. Hamilton in many ways you could say argued for how it is interpreted today while Madison argued for what I'm telling you it means. Madison is considered the mind behind the commerce clause for a reason and one such reason is that he won the debate on the meaning of the commerce clause. Of course, you could say that due to it being ignored Hamilton won the war.Firstly, intent is variable. There were many who had a hand in creating the Constitution... and many differing views. Intent was not universal.
What I said is a generality. Lets review: "The commerce was intended to solve trade disputes between the listed members." That is a general statement.Secondly, since much of the Constitution was written in generalities, intent is fairly irrelevant. Generalities allow for a variety of situations to be applied. Beyond that, how a law was created is not always equivalent to how it is applied or can be applied. And, just because you disagree with this doesn't mean it's not accurate.
That is dumbest argument I ever seen. Are you honestly saying that because its a power of congress that it can not by definition violate any of the amendments? Really? Yes, the parts of the Constitution do not live in a vacuum and its one reason they can not use powers of congress to violate the amendments.The law doesn't violate the 1st and 13 Amendments because one must look at the Commerce Clause in conjunction. None of these things live in a vacuum.
There is not one instance of that happening. Your argument seems to be that I want more and its just not acceptable to not get it. The point of the document is to keep people like yourself in the corner crying.I've told you. I have no use for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. Nor do many others. Intent is not only variable and relative but becomes less applicable as time passes.
Which has nothing to do with the commerce clause. In any event, I could just as easily argue that it affects commerce in state lines and therefore not applicable to that commerce. Unless you want to argue that accepting people into my store is interstate commerce. That should be a fun argument to make.It is perfectly reasonable to use the Commerce Clause in the way it was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since that clause applies to private business operations between states, the application in this matter is justified. This is probably why it was never declared unconstitutional; because it wasn't. Intent has no relevancy here.
Last edited by Henrin; 05-28-13 at 11:17 AM.
Also, yes, actually. They used to exclude black people, but that practice (mostly) ended nearly a century ago. It took much longer to integrate troops though, black scouts had the "separate but (not) equal" troops until like the freaking 70's.
Last edited by Deuce; 05-28-13 at 07:24 PM.
One of you will end up here next!