• 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!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96
Of written laws agree. But most of these are written laws that people must abide by.

But you also mention people treat violators. That's an unwritten law being enforced. Nothing new in them.

treat violators?

government is using its power to force people to behave in a matter they see fit.......which is unconstitutional

however government is given no moral authority in the law, or over the people, government is not here to make you moral or immoral..
 
As the law says you can't discriminate based on race, you would be in violation of the actual written law.

And yes, under the 14 th amendment, the supreme law of the law says equal protection and allows for legal recourse against such abuses.

you better read the 14th amendment again...........!
 
treat violators?

government is using its power to force people to behave in a matter they see fit.......which is unconstitutional

however government is given no moral authority in the law, or over the people, government is not here to make you moral or immoral..

Nonsense. They are enforcing the law. People decided that such unfair treatment over race was illegal. People are the government.
 
nonsense. They are enforcing the law. People decided that such unfair treatment over race was illegal. People are the government.

really, so the people can use the power of government to force other people to do what they want...........welcome to mob rule!
 
Have read it.

its appears you have not!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th amendment is aimed at governments only.......it does no address the people or businesses.

the constitution does not limit people or business...that would be against the founding principles of our government.
 
He's not serious. I'm not longer wasting my time.
 
show be where there is a moral /social duty of congress concerning the people life's

"we dont like".........who is we?........the people are given no power over their follow man, to direct his life.

Just as I thought. Now you are debating whether racial discrimination is wrong? Is that why Rand is saying it too?
The govt. has the power via the rule of law anything else is pure anarchy.
 
constitutional law is supreme law, there is none higher.

how can laws, which are on a lower level ,not as high as supreme law, override constitutional law.

the constitution is CLEAR, no person or entity including the federal government can force a citizen to do things against his will unless a crime has been committed.

There you go again. Now you are saying that racial discrimination is not a crime when it clearly is.
 
Just as I thought. Now you are debating whether racial discrimination is wrong? Is that why Rand is saying it too?
The govt. has the power via the rule of law anything else is pure anarchy.

of coarse, thats what we have been debating, becuase some people believe they have a rights, which extend into other peoples rights, and they believe they can use the force of government to get what they want.

so according to what you believe.....government is given authority, to say what is law,even though it is not in the constitution. and what is not law, even if it is in the constitution?

so even though the constitution states what it states, government can violate the very law, they are suppose to uphold, and secure the rights of the people.

discrimination is not a criminal act, therefore it does not fall under the power of government to use force on the people........discrimination is a moral behavior problem of people,..... but not a duty of government
 
Last edited:
There you go again. Now you are saying that racial discrimination is not a crime when it clearly is.

no its not....

under criminal law you go to jail.

discrimination laws, are statutory laws, and you can pay fines, or put out of business.
 
its appears you have not!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th amendment is aimed at governments only.......it does no address the people or businesses.

the constitution does not limit people or business...that would be against the founding principles of our government.

It is the bases fir civil rights, which is where these laws come from. And you may recall the Articles of Confederation were too weak, so a stronger federal government was created.

I also spoke of precedence being part if he entire picture. This question was decided long before civil rights. Government has been doing since the beginning.

You guys have been wrong about this before. Remember health care?
 
what a deflection on your part...........i am displeased!

what happened to your defense?

Nothing happened to my argument. It's still there. Nothing has challenged it yet. Making ridiculous hyperbolic statements don't rebut an argument. It only makes one shake his head.
 
It is the bases fir civil rights, which is where these laws come from. And you may recall the Articles of Confederation were too weak, so a stronger federal government was created.

I also spoke of precedence being part if he entire picture. This question was decided long before civil rights. Government has been doing since the beginning.

You guys have been wrong about this before. Remember health care?

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
 
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 rights would place a burden on a fellow citizen, and that is unconstitutional.

healthcare is placed under the........ taxing clause

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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom