View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Voters
123. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 52.03%
  • No

    56 45.53%
  • I don't know

    3 2.44%
Page 48 of 198 FirstFirst ... 3846474849505898148 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #471
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Read up on the civil rights movement and the 14 th amendment. The was you dislike we're born there, and on the back at least in part on that amendment.

    Again, this is the law of the land, he supreme law. The courts have ruled and separate but unequal didn't hold up.
    government cannot create rights by an amendment becuase that defines, the DOI, which is u.s. Code, and organic law of the u.s.

    if government could create rights, then they could give some rights to some and not others......which would be unconstitutional.

    again ...you stated you read the 14th, however you didn't comment its states........."NO STATE SHALL DISCRIMINATE"

  2. #472
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    government cannot create rights by an amendment becuase that defines, the DOI, which is u.s. Code, and organic law of the u.s.

    if government could create rights, then they could give some rights to some and not others......which would be unconstitutional.

    again ...you stated you read the 14th, however you didn't comment its states........."NO STATE SHALL DISCRIMINATE"
    You asked if I've read it. I have. And the history surrounding it. The reason you guys come up wrong is because you read only sections and largely out of historical context. You forget the role of precedence. You ignore how these came about. You try to deal with it in a vacuum, as if words are not connected to other words or ideas with intentions.

    The discrimination they speak of would be what you support. Letting business discriminate. We through a period if allowing that and it went badly. Eventually, it had to be re-thought and the original intent revisited. And at the end if the day, this is where we are, and better for it.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #473
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You asked if I've read it. I have. And the history surrounding it. The reason you guys come up wrong is because you read only sections and largely out of historical context. You forget the role of precedence. You ignore how these came about. You try to deal with it in a vacuum, as if words are not connected to other words or ideas with intentions.

    The discrimination they speak of would be what you support. Letting business discriminate. We through a period if allowing that and it went badly. Eventually, it had to be re-thought and the original intent revisited. And at the end if the day, this is where we are, and better for it.
    what are we discussing .......the violation of constitutional law.

    we know what the court says, but we also know what the constitution says.......its written clearly, that a state, meaning its government cannot discriminate..............where does the constitution state there is a limit on the people or a business?.....no where.

    it does not apply, becuase as i stated before the constitution is not written to restrain the people or business at all.......Constitutions are written for governments only... to restrain them............so how can the 14th amendment apply to individuals?
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-22-13 at 09:19 PM.

  4. #474
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

    In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

    That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

    Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

    Yes
    No
    I don't Know
    I am glad to see this discussion is directly dealing with Rand Paul's comments to NPR and later advanced with Maddow, as reading the topic and then the poll, my mind immediately lept to that exchange, without even having read your OP.

    Believe it or not, I have some strong criticisms of Rand Paul, particularly with the specific statements ended his filibusters, and far more so, even extreme criticism, with regard to his father, but not in this regard.

    The FACT of the matter, and the FACT of the Constitution itself, even with the 14th Amendment's addition, it is nowhere the legitimate authority of either the federal or the state government to dictate the terms of society, and in fact the 14th Amendment's insertion of the federal government into policing rights in the several states, is gross violation of the Constitution and the very definition of Rights themselves.

    In point of fact, by the terms of the Constitution, the federal government has ZERO Constitutional authority to legislate statutory law applying to the territory of the States, with the constitutional provision of legislative authority being limited to 1) the 10x10 mile area we know today as the District of Columbia, 2) lands specifically designated as federal lands, 3) Forts, arsenals, and military bases, and 4) territories that are prospective future states, and nothing else!

    This makes the entirety of federal laws that are over and above, and supreme to, state laws, imposing more severe statutory penalties, particularly "hate crime legislation", and other federal dictates imposed through environmental law, --- ENTIRELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF AUTHORITY.

    "Rights" are specifically recognized in this country to prohibit the federal government from any ability to deny or alter those rights, and this fact would prohibit the federal government from any sort of legitimate authority in the policing of those rights, even with the unconstitutional provision in the 14th Amendment to do so.

    The federal government can no more put itself in charge of policing rights via Amendment, than it can deny those rights, such as the 2nd Amendment, by other amendments, as to do so grossly violates the single most foundational principle of the Constitution, and this country itself.

    The idea that "rights" might be used as some sort of "on-demand license" to use against private citizens, and private organizations, to compel them to provide any individual's or class of citizens expectations, is a thorough corruption of 'rights" itself, involving the transgression of those individuals and classes of citizens upon the very rights of those private individuals and organizations, in no way allowing them to compel those into service of their desires.

    Like it or not, "rights" are a guaranteed individual freedom to each and every individual, provided it is within the sphere of their own personal authority, and does not transgress upon other individual's own rights.

    These "public accommodations" are nowhere within the rights of those individuals to expect, nor the federal government's legitimate authority to police and compel, no matter how much either party might complain or demand.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  5. #475
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    I am glad to see this discussion is directly dealing with Rand Paul's comments to NPR and later advanced with Maddow, as reading the topic and then the poll, my mind immediately lept to that exchange, without even having read your OP.

    Believe it or not, I have some strong criticisms of Rand Paul, particularly with the specific statements ended his filibusters, and far more so, even extreme criticism, with regard to his father, but not in this regard.

    The FACT of the matter, and the FACT of the Constitution itself, even with the 14th Amendment's addition, it is nowhere the legitimate authority of either the federal or the state government to dictate the terms of society, and in fact the 14th Amendment's insertion of the federal government into policing rights in the several states, is gross violation of the Constitution and the very definition of Rights themselves.

    In point of fact, by the terms of the Constitution, the federal government has ZERO Constitutional authority to legislate statutory law applying to the territory of the States, with the constitutional provision of legislative authority being limited to 1) the 10x10 mile area we know today as the District of Columbia, 2) lands specifically designated as federal lands, 3) Forts, arsenals, and military bases, and 4) territories that are prospective future states, and nothing else!

    This makes the entirety of federal laws that are over and above, and supreme to, state laws, imposing more severe statutory penalties, particularly "hate crime legislation", and other federal dictates imposed through environmental law, --- ENTIRELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF AUTHORITY.

    "Rights" are specifically recognized in this country to prohibit the federal government from any ability to deny or alter those rights, and this fact would prohibit the federal government from any sort of legitimate authority in the policing of those rights, even with the unconstitutional provision in the 14th Amendment to do so.

    The federal government can no more put itself in charge of policing rights via Amendment, than it can deny those rights, such as the 2nd Amendment, by other amendments, as to do so grossly violates the single most foundational principle of the Constitution, and this country itself.

    The idea that "rights" might be used as some sort of "on-demand license" to use against private citizens, and private organizations, to compel them to provide any individual's or class of citizens expectations, is a thorough corruption of 'rights" itself, involving the transgression of those individuals and classes of citizens upon the very rights of those private individuals and organizations, in no way allowing them to compel those into service of their desires.

    Like it or not, "rights" are a guaranteed individual freedom to each and every individual, provided it is within the sphere of their own personal authority, and does not transgress upon other individual's own rights.

    These "public accommodations" are nowhere within the rights of those individuals to expect, nor the federal government's legitimate authority to police and compel, no matter how much either party might complain or demand.
    oh yeah?

    Katzenbach v. McClung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  6. #476
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    so discrimination falls under commerce........what will the court say next.....

    when did the powers of government, take precedence over the rights of the people.
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-22-13 at 10:28 PM.

  7. #477
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Strict interpretation of the Constitution says they're right. Only government must accommodate all, and not interfere with business. Like Stossel I wouldnt go there.
    "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)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #478
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Whether they are or not has nothing to do with it.
    I think it has everything to do with it.

  9. #479
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Is there ever a supreme court ruling that makes sense? What does business discrimination practices have to do with keeping trade regular?

  10. #480
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Read up on the civil rights movement and the 14 th amendment. The was you dislike we're born there, and on the back at least in part on that amendment.

    Again, this is the law of the land, he supreme law. The courts have ruled and separate but unequal didn't hold up.
    What does the fourteenth amendment have to do with private institutions?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •