• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Boo Radley said:
I could repeat that to you if your want, but where you need to go is to the court cases I posted.
Click to expand...
the court does not over rule the constitution.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the court does not over rule the constitution.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

No said it did. But these issues have been addressed and framed differently than you frame them. That's why you can't understand it. You mis the history and it's framed. Instead of trying to find out you're missing, you just get stuck in some kind of misguided illogical loop, repeating the same things without addressing the history and context you miss.
 
Boo Radley said:
No said it did. But these issues have been addressed and framed differently than you frame them. That's why you can't understand it. You mis the history and it's framed. Instead of trying to find out you're missing, you just get stuck in some kind of misguided illogical loop, repeating the same things without addressing the history and context you miss.
Click to expand...

there is no framing, ..if you are compelled to preform an action by governments, to which no crime has been committed, that is unconstitutional.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor.

Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.



13th amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
there is no framing, ..if you are compelled to preform an action by governments, to which no crime has been committed, that is unconstitutional.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor.

Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.



13th amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the pa
rty shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

A crime has been committed: discrimination. There is no involuntary servitude. You have it framed incorrectly. Because of this, you can't see your error.
 
Boo Radley said:
A crime has been committed: discrimination. There is no involuntary servitude. You have it framed incorrectly. Because of this, you can't see your error.
Click to expand...
sorry, discrimination is not a criminal action, it does not fall under criminal law, its statutory law, and i have stated that before.

statutory discrimination
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry, discrimination is not a criminal action, it does not fall under criminal law, its statutory law, and i have stated that before.
Click to expand...

Isn't it in this circumstance? If there was no law to break, no fine. If there's a law, and you break it, you're a law breaker at best. So, don't try to side step.
 
Boo Radley said:
Isn't it in this circumstance? If there was no law to break, no fine. If there's a law, and you break it, you're a law breaker at best. So, don't try to side step.
Click to expand...

if you commit a crime,( criminal law) the police handcuff you and take you to the pokey.

if you break statutory law, you are fined and can be shut down, if you dont comply with the law..like say a safety or health issue of your business.

can you see two guys in jail , one saying he killed a guy with a pistol, .........and the other saying, ....i would not serve a guy a hamburger.

you cant go to jail for....... not serving someone.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if you commit a crime,( criminal law) the police handcuff you and take you to the pokey.

if you break statutory law, you are fined and can be shut down, if you dont comply with the law..like say a safety or health issue of your business.

can you see two guys in jail , one saying he killed a guy with a pistol, .........and the other saying, ....i would not serve a guy a hamburger.

you cant go to jail for....... not serving someone.
Click to expand...

Why do you jump off on tangents. One compared the two.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one is in servitude, making that pointless.
Click to expand...

anyone can be in servitude, if they are forced to do things against their will, and no crime has been committed.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor.

Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
<snip stuff in related to the topic>
Click to expand...
The question at hand concerns property, which nothing you've cited addresses.

Again, where is your evidence that "the right to property is the same as the right to free speech" is written in the Constitution?
 
ernst barkmann said:
anyone can be in servitude, if they are forced to do things against their will, and no crime has been committed.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor.

Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

again, no one is in involuntary servitude. You're whining about something that doesn't exist.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The question at hand concerns property, which nothing you've cited addresses.

Again, where is your evidence that "the right to property is the same as the right to free speech" is written in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

is there are right to property?...yes or no?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well answer me this, if Madison says something about the bill of rights, and Ginsburg says something about the bill of rights on the same subject...........who is the best authority on them?
Click to expand...
The only thing that matters is who has legal authority and the answer to that is also spelled out in the Constitution. Would you like me to quote it for you or can your supposed expertise in the Constitution provide you with that answer on your own?
 
Boo Radley said:
again, no one is in involuntary servitude. You're whining about something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

if someone is force by government to do something against there will.......like serve people at business...that is involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
MoSurveyor said:
The only thing that matters is who has legal authority and the answer to that is also spelled out in the Constitution. Would you like me to quote it for you or can your supposed expertise in the Constitution provide you with that answer on your own?
Click to expand...

the question is simple, Madison knows more about the constitution than Ginsburg.
 
ernst barkmann said:
is there are right to property?...yes or no?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what the contract says. You claimed there are property rights so present your evidence from the Constitution, which includes the Amendments.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what the contract says. You claimed there are property rights so present your evidence from the Constitution, which includes the Amendments.
Click to expand...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

Samuel Adams:

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

James Madison:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.

James Madison:
 
ernst barkmann said:
the question is simple, Madison knows more about the constitution than Ginsburg.
Click to expand...
The question is irrelevant. James Madison has no legal authority, Ginsburg and her eight peers do.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything there that mentions property.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if someone is force by government to do something against there will.......like serve people at business...that is involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. This s just silly exaggeration on your part.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I don't see anything there that mentions property.
Click to expand...

the congress cannot create a right, all rights which are not listed in the bill of rights are derived out of the 9th amendment.

this is were the USSC says the right to vote comes from.

the founders state our rights are unalienable, and the right to property is unalienable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom