Wash, rinse, repeat..
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.
>>one of the reasons why Bork scared liberals was he noted that bad precedent should be stricken even if there was years of reliance upon it
Certainly not the main reason. "Coke can" Clarence is an embarrassment, but Pork was much more dangerous. A man without any allegiance to the Constitution, imo.
I'll quickly admit that you want smaller government. You want an END to the less than 10% of the federal budget that goes to one form or another of (gasp, shudder) welfare. You figure it doesn't benefit you, so if low-income elderly and disabled folks and children in low-income households are seriously malnourished, live in terrible slum housing, or die prematurely from inadequate medical care, … eff it!
LOL about that.
Ah, I see. "Min safety regulations" must mean "minimum." I thought you were going for "mine."
Well, sorry you think the regs are excessive. Get the votes t' cut 'em.
>>and no, I never assumed you were a lawyer. thanks for the honesty
I didn't say anything to indicate that I thought you had. I was just being forthcoming so that my (unanswered) question about the Fourteenth Amendment could be seen in its proper context.
Imo, yer views on Supreme Court precedent and the important role it plays in establishing a stable jurisprudential environment in this country make it clear that a law degree doesn't help much when it comes to political judgement. If court precedent should be discarded, I'd say the Congress should act.
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada email@example.com