View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 49 of 198 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #481
    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
    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.
    How does that answer his post in any sort of way?

  2. #482
    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

    Let me get this straight, your idea of a valid counter to my assertion that the federal government has improperly usurped authority nowhere provided under the Constution, is to reference a case involving even more egregious usurpation by the federal government? Brilliant!

    The "commerce Clause" is NOT to provide any sort of over-arching authority to ply anything that might be even remotely associated with interstate commerce with regulation, taxation, and mandate, but rather only a vague authority to "regularize" or "make regular" that interstate commerce to so as to prohibit any sort of imbalance between the states, and thereby preclude a cause for warfare among the states.

    There's another case that made the news recently, where this criminal federal government compounds it corruption THREE-fold, by the Department of Injustice not only using the corrupted "commerce clause" but also federal laws being applicable to the states at all, and the corrupt hate crime laws, that the federal government has no legitimate authority to legislate either. In this case a handful of Amish persons were prosecuted under federal hate crime laws, for having used trimmers to cut the hair and beards of other Amish. And the means the federal government claimed it had this authority? The fact that those trimmers were manufactured in one state, and used in another, thereby having crossed state boundaries.

    This is specifically not the terms by which the founders referenced the Commerce Clause,

    In point of fact, just the case you cite, and those like it, are cause for Americans to take up arms, and overthrow an illegitimate and tyrannous government, using whatever force is necessary. Perhaps you've noticed the unprecedented arming of citizens going on, and the deliberate preparations of the federal government itself to institute martial law, while simultaneously trying to dry up the market on munitions, and illegitimately curtail the right to keep and bear arms, recognized by positive mandate, without any caveat whatsoever.

    None of this is good thing, but it is a necessary thing; quite clearly you need to understand precisely why it is occurring.

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

    ~ James Madison

  3. #483
    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 Henrin View Post
    Is there ever a supreme court ruling that makes sense? What does business discrimination practices have to do with keeping trade regular?
    Because its interstate trade and is not a power granted to the states.

    The decision:


    Katzenbach v. McClung

  4. #484
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You're the ones over exaggerating. But I'll accept your surrender.
    If you provide your definition of aggression we can continue. Otherwise, I know you're just trolling.

  5. #485
    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 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.

    There is no "role of precedence" except in to serve the Supreme Court's convenience in argument, and in corruption of the Constitution, just as is true of the role of "standing".

    The only obligation that the Court has in its decisions is to the Constitution itself, which is a static document whose terms and understanding were known. The only legitimate recognition of those terms is original intent, otherwise other predisposed "interpretations" are ascribing that document with things never indicated, and which the people never agreed upon, and never ratified.

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

    ~ James Madison

  6. #486
    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
    Because its interstate trade and is not a power granted to the states.

    The decision:


    Katzenbach v. McClung
    commerce in no way has power over the individual citizen.

    i find the USSC court argument to be ridiculous, becuase it conflicts with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison arguments on...... the powers of government.

    both men stated clearly that a bill of rights was not needed at all, in fact they stated one was dangerous, because listing the rights of the people,.... limited rights.

    they stated that under the constitution, the government with its enumerated powers, could in no way violate the rights of individual citizens, becuase government has no powers, no authority to do anything..... which would violate the rights of the people.

    by the court making such a decision, they are saying government can do things which violate rights.....of the people, even though the bill of rights preamble, states otherwise.
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-22-13 at 10:49 PM.

  7. #487
    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
    Because its interstate trade and is not a power granted to the states.

    The decision:


    Katzenbach v. McClung
    If I do business in my store that is not interstate trade and even if it was the clause has to do with trade disputes, not control over commerce. Where is the dispute between the members listed if I as a business man refuse to do business with someone from outside the state?

    I'm really getting sick of the commerce clause abuse. I have a feeling we need an amendment to restore order where it is lost.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-22-13 at 10:53 PM.

  8. #488
    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
    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?
    Do we know? We can read it, that's true. But if it was so clear that anyone reading it saw the same thing as every other person, there would never be debate. We both know that's not the case.

    Again, follow the context if the the civil rights movement and you will see how the 14th amendment played a role.

    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.

  9. #489
    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 Henrin View Post
    I think it has everything to do with it.
    Not the first time you've been wrong.

    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.

  10. #490
    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 Henrin View Post
    What does the fourteenth amendment have to do with private institutions?
    It has to with how the laws came about. Doesn't anyone read?

    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.

Posting Permissions

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