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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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

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
 
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.
 
As noted above, it extends beyond those two.

No, it doesn't. Business is not a member listed and the clause in question only deals with trade disputes. There is no trade dispute between the listed members if a business doesn't do business with certain people. The court was wrong.
 
You keep saying, "That's not aggression". Okay, so please define aggression.

That doesn't answer me. We have your definition, using it, it doesn't describe what is taking place. So what good would another definition do that you still would see?
 
No, it doesn't. Business is not a member listed and the clause in question only deals with trade disputes. There is no trade dispute between the listed members if a business doesn't do business with certain people. The court was wrong.

Land yet, we see the courts ruled differently? Can't you see this?
 
That doesn't answer me. We have your definition, using it, it doesn't describe what is taking place. So what good would another definition do that you still would see?

How is the law in question not aggression?
 
Land yet, we see the courts ruled differently? Can't you see this?

Why do you assume I can't see that the courted differently? Their basing their ruling on prior rulings that are wrong. They just exacerbated their wrongness.
 
That doesn't answer me. We have your definition, using it, it doesn't describe what is taking place. So what good would another definition do that you still would see?

In order to determine whether an act constitutes an initiation of aggression, we first need to agree upon a definition of aggression. Do you agree with the following definition from the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle?

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
 
In order to determine whether an act constitutes an initiation of aggression, we first need to agree upon a definition of aggression. Do you agree with the following definition from the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle?

Link that definition.
 
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agree? Or do you have an alternate definition you'd like to suggest?

No.

Definition of AGGRESSION

1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another

3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Aggression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


From your link:


NAP faces two kinds of criticism: the first holds that the principle is immoral, the second argues that it is impossible to apply consistently in practice; respectively, consequentialist or deontological criticisms, and inconsistency criticisms.
 
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.


Actually the only "consistency" in how the government has worked from the beginning, actually began 78 years into the country's history, only after the Civil War, and involves the repeated expansion of illegitimate federal authority into entire areas deliberate prohibited by the Constitution, resulting in Court illegitimately whitewashing what the other hand of government was doing.

The claim of any federal authority over to enact laws in the states, much less authority over civil rights, is one of this gross corruptions which is a subversion of the Constitution to its very core.

And again, the sound you hear of citizens arming up is them preparing to indicate these conditions are no longer acceptable.
 
Actually the only "consistency" in how the government has worked from the beginning, actually began 78 years into the country's history, only after the Civil War, and involves the repeated expansion of illegitimate federal authority into entire areas deliberate prohibited by the Constitution, resulting in Court illegitimately whitewashing what the other hand of government was doing.

The claim of any federal authority over to enact laws in the states, much less authority over civil rights, is one of this gross corruptions which is a subversion of the Constitution to its very core.

And again, the sound you hear of citizens arming up is them preparing to indicate these conditions are no longer acceptable.

You'll be very disappointed. Your vision isn't real.
 
Well, how do you deal with the fact that I am treated as a second class citizen by my government every single day? I am white. I am male. I am married. I pay lots of taxes. My government despises me and treats me as a cash cow.
So you pay lots of taxes like me. Is it because we're white and married? I thought my government likes me because I pay them so much. Would I pay less taxes if I was black, gay and unmarried and made as much money as I do now? I'd think I'd pay more. But, please instruct me.
 
First, we need to have these laws in place because of historical experience in our republic. I do not trust mankind enough to pretend we are that much more civilized, and icertainly would not trust fanciful rhetoric when our rights are on the line. De Jure segregation did not start segregation, it later accompanied de facto segregation.

Do you have evidence for this claim? I am not saying that there wasn't any discrimination but it was minimal compared to how the later-established laws treated minorities.

For example, in the American colonies (early 1600s I believe) many African Americans were treated almost as equals for many years before laws were put in place to discriminate against them.
 
No one has a right to enter peoples property against their wishes
No one has a right to force others to do them a service.
That changes when you open for business to the PUBLIC.

No libertarian in this thread spoke in favor of Jim Crow laws.
Allowing discrimination would bring back Jim Crow with bells on... And you either know that or you are pathetically naive.

Who said anything about the repeal of the CRA? We are talking about two titles in the law, not the entire law.
As I said before the two titles in question are the very heart and legs of the legislation.:roll:
 
That changes when you open for business to the PUBLIC.

When did that happen?


Allowing discrimination would bring back Jim Crow with bells on... And you either know that or you are pathetically naive.

How is allowing for businesses to control the access and use of their property along with allowing them to interact with who they desire lead to allowing the government to discriminate?

As I said before the two titles in question are the very heart and legs of the legislation.:roll:

How is that even possible? The government would still be barred from discriminating against anyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom