View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 51 of 198 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #501
    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
    It's not the term that is the problem. You're coming at the problem from the wrong end. We could agree what aggression is, but calling not getting a tip aggression or having to service some you're prejudice against simply doesn't qualify. Neither does getting a fine. It's you unreason application of the word that is at issue. Not the word.
    What we call aggression would depend upon the definition of aggression, which you assiduously avoid providing.

  2. #502
    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
    The fourteenth amendment would only deal with the titles that deal with the state, so really I have no idea what you are talking about. Furthermore, your claim about the founders trying to form a strong government with the constitution is false. They were trying to form a federal government "stronger" than the AOC, not a strong federal government. Really, I can't find one thing you said that is true.
    Stronger yes. Which led to reasonably strong, also true. They sought a balance. As we do today. From day one the federal government was dealing with issues as they arose. They were not absent from the issues of the day.

    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. #503
    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 Federalist View Post
    What we call aggression would depend upon the definition of aggression, which you assiduously avoid providing.
    By your definition, you miscalled. If you can't even make a judgement with your own definition, what good would another one do? If you can answer that, I might concede we need one.

    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.

  4. #504
    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
    By your definition, you miscalled. If you can't even make a judgement with your own definition, what good would another one do? If you can answer that, I might concede we need one.
    You keep saying, "That's not aggression". Okay, so please define aggression.

  5. #505
    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
    As a legal term, you're correct. But in the world, something established, done from day one, sets the course of things (precedence for lack a better word). And it does work tis way. There's nothing new here. Nothing that hasn't already been challenged. So, the pattern, the functional way of things has long since been established (precedence). I'll accept a better word if you have one. The concept s what's important here.
    The means by which the federal government usurped any authority over states, not to mention the private citizens of the state, should have been challenged and denied long ago.

    Unfortunately, it was introduced under the premise that it was doing something beneficial to society as a whole, by the emancipation of slaves, and ensuring the rights of those emancipated blacks, and in so doing the government found that by that corrupt authority, it might even deny the most unalienable right of citizens to their freedom of association, in the dictation of the terms of integration.

    It's long overdue to return government to its 10x10 box, and restore the Constitution. Precedent really does not account for any standing, any more so than you or I having successfully exceeded the speed limit repeatedly might undermine the inevitable speeding ticket..

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

    ~ James Madison

  6. #506
    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 Trip View Post
    The means by which the federal government usurped any authority over states, not to mention the private citizens of the state, should have been challenged and denied long ago.

    Unfortunately, it was introduced under the premise that it was doing something beneficial to society as a whole, by the emancipation of slaves, and ensuring the rights of those emancipated blacks, and in so doing the government found that by that corrupt authority, it might even deny the most unalienable right of citizens to their freedom of association, in the dictation of the terms of integration.

    It's long overdue to return government to its 10x10 box, and restore the Constitution. Precedent really does not account for any standing, any more so than you or I having successfully exceeded the speed limit repeatedly might undermine the inevitable speeding ticket..
    Don't know about shoulda, woulda, coulda. But the challenges didn't stand. The government has been overall reasonably consistent in how it has worked from the beginning. So we have a measure of certainty on how things work, just as we have a reasonable idea of how and when to navigate the traffic laws.

    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.

  7. #507
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,354

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    wrong, there are no civil rights, becuase the government cannot create rights per the 14th amendment, they are civil privileges.

    yes the articles of confederation were weak becuase the government could not enforce certain laws, like commerce, states enforced the rights of the people, becuase the constitution did not apply to the states at all.

    there are rights and the are privileges, as listed in the constitution.

    you dont have rights to be served by other people, ...becuase such a right would place a burden on a fellow citizen, and that is unconstitutional.

    healthcare is placed under the........ taxing clause
    I think you are stretching the "burden on a fellow citizen" when that applies to taking money for a service. You have a right to be treated equally under the law and in a place of business.

  8. #508
    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
    Stronger yes. Which led to reasonably strong, also true. They sought a balance. As we do today. From day one the federal government was dealing with issues as they arose. They were not absent from the issues of the day.
    An ability to tax that is extremely limited in scope and an ability to deal with trade disputes is extremely weak actually.

  9. #509
    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?

    Some good reading presented to me earlier:

    This Court has held time and again that this power extends to activities of retail establishments, including restaurants, which directly or indirectly burden or obstruct interstate commerce. We have detailed the cases in Heart of Atlanta Motel, and will not repeat them here.

    Nor are the cases holding that interstate commerce ends when goods come to rest in the State of destination apposite here. That line of cases has been applied with reference to state taxation or regulation, but not in the field of federal regulation.

    The appellees contend that Congress has arbitrarily created a conclusive presumption that all restaurants [p303] meeting the criteria set out in the Act "affect commerce." Stated another way, they object to the omission of a provision for a case-by-case determination -- judicial or administrative -- that racial discrimination in a particular restaurant affects commerce.

    But Congress' action in framing this Act was not unprecedented. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941), this Court held constitutional the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. [n2] There, Congress determined that the payment of substandard wages to employees engaged in the production of goods for commerce, while not itself commerce, so inhibited it as to be subject to federal regulation. The appellees in that case argued, as do the appellees here, that the Act was invalid because it included no provision for an independent inquiry regarding the effect on commerce of substandard wages in a particular business. (Brief for appellees, pp. 76-77, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100.) But the Court rejected the argument, observing that:

    [S]ometimes Congress itself has said that a particular activity affects the commerce, as it did in the present Act, the Safety Appliance Act, and the Railway Labor Act. In passing on the validity of legislation of the class last mentioned the only function of courts is to determine whether the particular activity regulated or prohibited is within the reach of the federal power.

    Katzenbach v. McClung

    McClung argued that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, at least as applied to a small, private business such as his. McClung further argued that the amount of food purchased by Ollie's that actually crossed state lines (about half of the food at Ollie's) was so minuscule that Ollie's effectively had no effect on interstate commerce (although McClung admitted that a significant amount of Ollie's business was to interstate travelers). Consequently, McClung argued that Congress had no power to regulate Ollie's Barbecue under the Commerce Clause.


    The court ruled unanimously that the Civil Rights Act is constitutional and that it was properly applied against Ollie's Barbecue.
    Justice Clark wrote the majority opinion, with concurrences by Justices Black, Douglas, and Goldberg. In section 2 of the opinion, the Court agreed with McClung that Ollie's itself had virtually no effect on interstate commerce. In section 4 of the opinion, the Court held that racial discrimination in restaurants had a significant impact on interstate commerce, and therefore Congress has the power to regulate this conduct under the Commerce Clause. The Court's conclusion was based on extensive Congressional hearings on the issue. The Court cited testimony that African Americans spent significantly less time in areas with racially segregated restaurants, and that segregation imposed an artificial restriction on the flow of merchandise by discouraging African Americans from making purchases in segregated establishments. The Court gave the greatest weight to evidence that segregation in restaurants had a "direct and highly restrictive effect upon interstate travel by Negroes."

    Katzenbach v. McClung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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. #510
    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
    An ability to tax that is extremely limited in scope and an ability to deal with trade disputes is extremely weak actually.
    As noted above, it extends beyond those two.

    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
  •