• 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

Henrin said:
Yeah, I have seen that argument before. It's the old argument that I can take a document of limited powers and make it reach to whatever I want. It's based on nothing but illogical thought patterns.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've seen the argument before. Your dismissal of it doesn't alter that it is completely logical and doesn't refute a single thing I said.
 
Deuce said:
The Point




Your head

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.
Click to expand...

Have a link?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm sure you've seen the argument before. Your dismissal of it doesn't alter that it is completely logical and doesn't refute a single thing I said.
Click to expand...

The idea you can ignore the meanings of words when they were written and the basic rules of the english language to make clauses mean whatever you want them to mean is completely without merit in both the logical sense and the ethical sense.

It's even worse when you suggest that the powers of congress are somehow above and beyond the rights of the people.
 
Henrin said:
The idea you can ignore the meanings of words when they were written and the basic rules of the english language to make clauses mean whatever you want them to mean is completely without merit in both the logical sense and the ethical sense.

It's even worse when you suggest that the powers of congress are somehow above and beyond the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Even worse when you suggest that your opinions have authority above and beyond SCOTUS's
 
sangha said:
Even worse when you suggest that your opinions have authority above and beyond SCOTUS's
Click to expand...

My opinion?

My view towards the commerce clause comes from Madison himself.
My view towards the section of the fourteenth amendment used comes from the words written on the page that only restrict the action of state and protects the peoples rights and of course the intent of that section of the amendment that was to restrict states from action and protect peoples rights.
The first amendment was intended in part to protect all peoples right to association which includes business owners obviously.
The thirteenth amendment protects everyones right to not be a slave or an involuntary servant which again includes business owners obviously. It is clear that if we are outlawing involuntary servitude from the US that the federal government can not in turn put people into involuntary servitude through legislation.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
My opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes

My view towards the commerce clause comes from Madison himself.
Click to expand...

IOW, it doesn't come from the constitution

My view towards the section of the fourteenth amendment used comes from the words written on the page that only restrict the action of state and protects the peoples rights and of course the intent of that section of the amendment that was to restrict states from action and protect peoples rights.
Click to expand...

IOW, your opinion comes from your opinion

The first amendment was intended in part to protect all peoples right to association which includes business owners obviously.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. Not in the constitution

The thirteenth amendment protects everyones right to not be a slave or an involuntary servant which again includes business owners obviously. It is clear that if we are outlawing involuntary servitude from the US that the federal government can not in turn put people into involuntary servitude through legislation.
Click to expand...

True, but irrelevant because it only outlawed enslavement, not regulation. Regulation is allowed by the CC, which is misunderstood by you because your opinion is self-admittedly not guided by the constitution
 
sangha said:
Yes
Click to expand...

No.

IOW, it doesn't come from the constitution
Click to expand...

No, it's from Madison when he was talking about Constitution.

IOW, your opinion comes from your opinion
Click to expand...

Can you read the english language? What does that section of the fourteenth amendment referenced by the SC say?

Your opinion. Not in the constitution
Click to expand...

It very clearly is in the Constitution. Would you like to say how its not? No?

True, but irrelevant because it only outlawed enslavement, not regulation. Regulation is allowed by the CC, which is misunderstood by you because your opinion is self-admittedly not guided by the constitution
Click to expand...

That argument makes no sense. The commerce clause has nothing to do with regulation of business, but trade disputes between the listed members. It would have no bearing on business at all. Also, not all regulation calls for involuntary servitude.
 
When you pick on the Boy Scouts you piss off Chuck Norris.

970863_310071389126046_377771890_n.jpg


Or you'll get this.
 
Bonzai said:
Question: How many kids in the US today over 16 want to be "scouts" anyway anymore ?................................
Click to expand...

Anymore? No one wanted to hang around that regimented bull**** when I was 16 either. Hell, by 14 we were too cool to scout. All of the Eagle scouts since back in the '50s have been Gay young men. They had much more motivation to hang out in a troop of young men.
 
Henrin said:
The idea you can ignore the meanings of words when they were written and the basic rules of the english language to make clauses mean whatever you want them to mean is completely without merit in both the logical sense and the ethical sense.
Click to expand...

Since this is not what's happening, your point is irrelevant.

It's even worse when you suggest that the powers of congress are somehow above and beyond the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Since this is ALSO not what's happening, your point is irrelevant.
 
d0gbreath said:
Anymore? No one wanted to hang around that regimented bull**** when I was 16 either. Hell, by 14 we were too cool to scout. All of the Eagle scouts since back in the '50s have been Gay young men. They had much more motivation to hang out in a troop of young men.
Click to expand...

Seems you know a lot about it, are you an Eagle Scout?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since this is not what's happening, your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The word regulate meant to "keep regular". The power given to Congress is to keep “regular” the commerce between and among the various states. Using the modern definition of the word regulate is wrong. It does not mean to control or supervise (a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations."
Since this is ALSO not what's happening, your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

When you say you can enact the powers of congress and the amendments in question are somehow not limits on the government that is exactly what you're doing.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
The BS started officially started in 1910. The first black BS troop was 1911. Seems to me the Boy Scout organization was cutting edge.
Click to expand...

Segregated until like the 70s though. Which is why I used the word segregated.

So they weren't terrible by the standards of the time, but it took until 2013 to let gay kids in so hardly cutting edge now.

in any case, the point of all this was your ridiculous stereotype being analogous to racial stereotyping.
 
Deuce said:
Segregated until like the 70s though. Which is why I used the word segregated.

So they weren't terrible by the standards of the time, but it took until 2013 to let gay kids in so hardly cutting edge now.

in any case, the point of all this was your ridiculous stereotype being analogous to racial stereotyping.
Click to expand...

Half truths are lies all dressed up. The BS left it up to local areas to decide on integration and it was in the south that it went on until the 70s. At that point the BS organization made it mandatory for all troops to be integrated but implying all troops were segregated until then is just not factual.
 
Henrin said:
No.
Click to expand...

Yes

No, it's from Madison when he was talking about Constitution.
Click to expand...

IOW, it doesn't come from the constitution

Can you read the english language? What does that section of the fourteenth amendment referenced by the SC say?
Click to expand...

Nope, you spoke of intent, which is just your opinion



It very clearly is in the Constitution. Would you like to say how its not? No?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.



That argument makes no sense. The commerce clause has nothing to do with regulation of business, but trade disputes between the listed members. It would have no bearing on business at all. Also, not all regulation calls for involuntary servitude.
Click to expand...

Wrong again
 
sangha said:
Yes



IOW, it doesn't come from the constitution



Nope, you spoke of intent, which is just your opinion





No, it's not.





Wrong again
Click to expand...


Grade school arguments all around. Tell me when you can actually defeat one of my arguments that I have put out this entire thread. I can't believe someone can respond as much as you have in this thread and yet not defeat one argument the entire time.
 
Henrin said:
Grade school arguments all around. Tell me when you can actually defeat one of my arguments that I have put out this entire thread. I can't believe someone can respond as much as you have in this thread and yet not defeat one argument the entire time.
Click to expand...

Ironic
 
Henrin said:
Wrong again. The word regulate meant to "keep regular". The power given to Congress is to keep “regular” the commerce between and among the various states. Using the modern definition of the word regulate is wrong. It does not mean to control or supervise (a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations."
Click to expand...

And since it has been interpreted to mean "manage" since the very early 1800's when many who contributed to the Constitution were still in governing position, this is why intent is so variable and fairly irrelevant.


When you say you can enact the powers of congress and the amendments in question are somehow not limits on the government that is exactly what you're doing.
Click to expand...

Again, Henrin, since the early 1800's things have been interpreted in different ways. This is, again, why intent is fairly irrelevant because of the variable nature of the intentions and the generalized nature of many parts of the Constitution.

Like I said. I have have no use for those who practice original intent. The position is illogical as there was NO singular intent as there was no singular author and the wording was generalized to allow for future use and relative to allow for flexibility. You and I do not have a common frame of reference for which to discuss this issue.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And since it has been interpreted to mean "manage" since the very early 1800's when many who contributed to the Constitution were still in governing position, this is why intent is so variable and fairly irrelevant.




Again, Henrin, since the early 1800's things have been interpreted in different ways. This is, again, why intent is fairly irrelevant because of the variable nature of the intentions and the generalized nature of many parts of the Constitution.

Like I said. I have have no use for those who practice original intent. The position is illogical as there was NO singular intent as there was no singular author and the wording was generalized to allow for future use and relative to allow for flexibility. You and I do not have a common frame of reference for which to discuss this issue.
Click to expand...

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
Click to expand...

It's our duty to maintain a consistent interpretation, to assure a fair application of the law to all people and their posterity. Inconsistent interpretations allow creep in the meaning of words and clauses, and consequently the fair application of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom