• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Not legal contracts signed by all parties involved.

the federalist papers explain the constitution and the arguments of things concerning it.

Hamilton and Madison state the federal government has no power under the constitution to violate the rights of the people...becuase they power is limited.
 
Do you think history on this stopped in 1873? I'm concerned you did click the link I gave and read it all, nor the court cases I gave earlier.

i told you why the amendments were created. and your giving me what the court said in the 1950's

i am saying what the court said after the amendment was passed.
 
the federalist papers explain the constitution and the arguments of things concerning it.

Hamilton and Madison state the federal government has no power under the constitution to violate the rights of the people...becuase they power is limited.
Sorry, those are not legal contracts. What is a legal contact is the Constitution.
 
i told you why the amendments were created. and your giving me what the court said in the 1950's

i am saying what the court said after the amendment was passed.

But it doesn't stop there. The original intent matches the 50s better. You need to see the entire story.
 
James Madison wrote the bill of rights, and is the highest authority on them.
No, the highest authority is the Bill of Rights as ratified by the States. You seem to keep forgetting the obvious and the only thing that really counts.


if you want what the court says then........"the pursuit of happiness translates into property ownership"
No cite, no dice.


Besides that, aren't you the one always telling us the courts got it all wrong?!? :lamo
 
So you can say anything you want anywhere you want. No restrictions at all on speech?

there are restrictions when you invade other people rights....and these can fall into criminal law.

meaning, you dont have a right to free speech at the DMV, where you would have a captive audience.

again you need to think about what you saying....your again saying people have a right to be served, by another person, and that is not logical, becuase no citizen can force another citizen to do something, against his will by claiming a right.

and government is given no authority under a constitution to control private property based on morality.
 
No, the highest authority is the Bill of Rights as ratified by the States. You seem to keep forgetting the obvious and the only thing that really counts.

this is non sense, again your failings to understand ...is sad.

Madison wrote the bill of rights, and when he talks about them, no other person has more knowledge them.




No cite, no dice.


Besides that, aren't you the one always telling us the courts got it all wrong?!? :lamo

again another failing of yours.

you did not read property...my statement to you......if you want what the court says then........"the pursuit of happiness translates into property ownership"

i supplied what the court says for your benefit, since you place them so highly.
 
Last edited:
A contract needs no explanation. It is what is written and that's why it's written.

really?...then why is government regulating commerce inside the states, ...when the federalist papers say it is only among the states , becuase of the commerce wars under the articles of confederation.
 
this is non sense, again your failings to understand ...is sad.

Madison wrote the bill of rights, and when he talks about them, no other person has more knowledge them.

states are entities, and dont have knowledge.
I understand just fine. When the used car salesman tells me he will maintain my car for 6 months and give me a 2 yr. parts and labor warranty on the drive train you bet your ass that I'll make sure all that is in the contract I sign before I hand over any money. It's the contract that counts.

Apparently it's you who are failing to understand. The States don't call the shots, either, all they did is ratify a written contract. It's the written contract that's the controlling factor here, not the States nor the people that wrote the contract.




again another failing of yours.

you did not read property...my statement to you......if you want what the court says then........"the pursuit of happiness translates into property ownership"

i supplied what the court says for your benefit, since you place them so highly.
I'm willing to take excerpts from the Constitution, which includes it's Amendments. Start quoting.
 
again another failing of yours.

you did not read property...my statement to you......if you want what the court says then........"the pursuit of happiness translates into property ownership"

i supplied what the court says for your benefit, since you place them so highly.
Another failing of yours - you still didn't cite the court case.
 
really?...then why is government regulating commerce inside the states, ...when the federalist papers say it is only among the states , becuase of the commerce wars under the articles of confederation.
I don't care what the Federalist papers say since they are not part of the binding contract.


If you'd like to show where the various States ratified the Federalist Papers then bring on the evidence.
 
I understand just fine. When the used car salesman tells me he will maintain my car for 6 months and give me a 2 yr. parts and labor warranty on the drive train you bet your ass that I'll make sure all that is in the contract I sign before I hand over any money. It's the contract that counts.

Apparently it's you who are failing to understand. The States don't call the shots, either, all they did is ratify a written contract. It's the written contract that's the controlling factor here, not the States nor the people that wrote the contract.

here, since you want this:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

its is the state themselves which created the compact, under the constitution which setup the federal government, it delegated to the federal government 18 enumerated duties only, all other powers belong to the states, per the 10th amendment.


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

and as far as commerce goes, here is what Madison says about it in the first line of federalist 42, where he states becuase under the articles of confederation there is a defect of power, becuase of the regulation of commerce between the members,(meaning the states), not inside the states.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)


Document 9

James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces9.html
 
Last edited:
I don't care what the Federalist papers say since they are not part of the binding contract.


If you'd like to show where the various States ratified the Federalist Papers then bring on the evidence.

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?
 
sorry no.... the states didn't.

it has only been since 1941 that government has taken over commerce.

the constitution states that the federal government has the power to regulate commerce among the states not inside them.

among ....means among a body or group.

a·mong (-mng) also a·mongst (-mngst)
prep.
1. In the midst of; surrounded by: a pine tree among cedars.
2. In the group, number, or class of: She is among the wealthy.
3. In the company of; in association with: traveling among a group of tourists.
4. By many or the entire number of; with many: a custom popular among the Greeks.
5. By the joint action of: Among us, we will finish the job.
6. With portions to each of: Distribute this among you.
7. Each with the other: Don't fight among yourselves. See Usage Note at between.

commerce under the articles of confederation was almost at a stand still becuase states where putting up barriers against each other and warring among themselves over commerce, this is why commerce among the states was given to the new federal government.

under the constitution the federal government was never meant to control commerce inside the state...that is a state power.

no where in the constitution are there any powers which give government authority over the people lifes..........expect for pirates counterfeiters and traitors.

States have the same anti-discrimination and regulation of commerce laws. And the 14th amendment extends constitutional protections of liberty to state laws. Theres also Art 4, Sec 2

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Again, its almost unanimous that people in this country should be treated equally regardless of race, sex or religion. We have constitutional text to back that up. We have federal laws to back that up. We have court cases to back that up. We have state and local laws to back that up. We have individuals to back that up. IMO, once you receive a critical mass such as this, the issue is settled, much like it is with freedom of speech, abortion rights, the right to bear arms. Some things are absolutely clear, and freedom from racial discrimination is one of them.
 
Absolutely not. Whether or not the businesses in question would have lost competitiveness or eventually went bankrupt is entirely speculatory and irrelevant. Putting into law the principle that no man should be treated as a second class citizen simply because of appearance was a necessary and long overdue measure.

By that logic, it is also illegal for private companies to establish gun free zones.
 
I don't agree that we should repeal part of the Civil Rights Acts of 64'... I understand that private business is private, and many believe a business owner should say, and do as he pleases. But, I don't think we should repeal this specific aspect of the Act because what if a big business like say Chick Fil-A said that they won't serve black people or gays tomorrow and forever... Well, they would then force their employees to kick out any black or gay people that came in for food even though that employee might hate what they are doing. I think it just creates a lot more problems. I don't see the point in going through and changing such a law. That's just my opinion. I understand the argument of a free-market system, but I think it would create so many more problems when employees are already struggling to find jobs to force them to conform to a view-point held by a CEO.

At which time they will take their business elsewhere, creating a demand for more employees at those other resturants where the former chick filet employees could seek employment.
 
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.

It's OK to tolerate it only in certain circumstances?
 
Are you planning on having sex in their establishments?

Do you have a badge that announces that you prefer to have sex with other members of the same gender?

How the heck would anyone know that you are gay unless you tell them?
The business could operate on stereotypes, for one. Refuse people that acted/or talked like the stereotypical gay. Or perhaps a gay couple walks in holding hands or something, the business would know then. Or the business could cater specifically to couples (such as wedding cake businesses) and refuse to serve gay couples. Those are just a few examples. Are you trying to argue it is impossible for businesses to discriminate against gays?

The nice part about free markets is that you could, in fact, create an organization that seeks discounts from businesses in return for your customer drawing power. You could use it to your advantage.
Ok, sure. What is your point in relation to the post of mine you quoted, exactly?
 
Because that is the society we almost unanimously decided to live in, one which grants equal treatment to people without consideration of race, sex, or religion. Youre welcome to try and change the constitution to allow people to discriminate based on race, but you wont convince me that doing so in public should be ok.

The Constitution says nothing about equal treatment on other peoples private property when it comes to getting service or gaining access. Try again.
 
Back
Top Bottom