• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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.
 
If you provide your definition of aggression we can continue. Otherwise, I know you're just trolling.

Don't you understand I have no investment in the word aggression. It simply doesn't apply here.
 
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.

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.
 
Don't you understand I have no investment in the word aggression. It simply doesn't apply here.

Okay, so you know what is NOT aggression, but you can't tell us what IS aggression.
 
Okay, so you know what is NOT aggression, but you can't tell us what IS aggression.

I know he word is plain ass exaggeration. To give it any credence is to be part if the problem. I won't do that. Tone it down and speak about the issue in realistic terms, and we can continue.
 
I know he word is plain ass exaggeration. To give it any credence is to be part if the problem. I won't do that. Tone it down and speak about the issue in realistic terms, and we can continue.

Well, sadly, we can't continue to debate if you won't agree to define your terms.
 
Well, sadly, we can't continue to debate if you won't agree to define your terms.

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.
 
It has to with how the laws came about. Doesn't anyone read?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom