• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
MoSurveyor said:
I'm not aware of any right to start a business.

As far as you guys have shown, there's not even a (constitutional) right to property, though you have so far demonstrated that IF people own property it's can't be taken away from them without due process.

PS
Oh, and you've shown that Congress can dictate intellectual property rights.
/PS



Your ideas about what constitutes a free society and mine are obviously not the same, so why bother using that misleading phrase?
Click to expand...

no such thing as a constitutional right..that's false, you have natural rights.

ask yourself.. if you have no right to property, can you make decisions regarding your own body.......no

if people have no right to property, then that would mean all property people possess, would come from the government, and they would have control over you in ever aspect of life.

property rights are the cornerstone of ALL rights.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Considering air and water aren't limited to one state, businesses that pollute in one state can sure as hell damage people in another state. And what laws cover those situations?
Click to expand...

that's true....and when one state pollutes another state, its time for the federal government to step in and settle the dispute between the two

that is power under the constitution given to the court in this kind of case, and here it is:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
 
ernst barkmann said:
are you kidding...........then what?????..is it saying cannot be deprived, unless due process of law............rights can only be deprived by due process....
Click to expand...
Deprivation: A taking away or confiscation

They can't take your toothbrush away from you without due process - assuming you own one at all. This could be for reasons of condemnation, eminent domain, or punishment (like a fine).


ernst barkmann said:
really, show me where congress is given authority to regulate commerce inside a state per the constitution.?
Click to expand...
What inside a state? It's interstate commerce.

But you're right - maybe the Fed should start charging the states for air traffic control duties that are strictly inside the state lines. :)


ernst barkmann said:
right and that is a state power,........ states duty is also to protect the people.

the federal government was not given authority over the land of states..states are sovereign.
Click to expand...
When pollution passes from one state to another it's no longer inside the state. Hence, the EPA. Is Texas putting up a 20 mile high wall to stop their air pollution from entering Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico? It will also need to be a very deep wall to make sure those pesky water pollutants don't migrate underground, too. Well, if they do all that you let me know and we'll talk again.
 
ernst barkmann said:
not true, read u.s. Code 29 152
Click to expand...
Wait. Now you're going to run to the courts after rejecting everything else the courts have said over countless threads?!? You get 3/3 for that one! Too funny!

:lamo :lamo :lamo


But you really should look closer at what you cite. This is from Subchapter II - National Labor Relations - Definitions and starts off with "When used in this subchapter ---".

Does this mean you are you willing to accept everything in Title 29 as gospel? You might want to read it over before you decide to answer - there may be things in there with which you disagree. In fact, I'd bet there are plenty of things in there you reject out of hand.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Deprivation: A taking away or confiscation

They can't take your toothbrush away from you without due process - assuming you own one at all. This could be for reasons of condemnation, eminent domain, or punishment (like a fine).
Click to expand...

what to you think you are doing by telling me i have not a right to run my business according to my likes, or my right to association.

a crime must be committed, and due process of law must take place for any right, including right of property to be removed ..you cant control my rights if i have committed no crime, or the health/safety of business or people is not at risk.

you whole argument is based out of emotion, in you want people to be treated equal and fair, but those things dont apply in constitutional law to people or business, becuase they dont make law, government does so in there creations, people have to be treated fairly under those laws.

and government has no authority under the constitution to apply force to people



MoSurveyor said:
What inside a state? It's interstate commerce.

But you're right - maybe the Fed should start charging the states for air traffic control duties that are strictly inside the state lines. :)
Click to expand...


here is the constitution:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

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"

translation: Madison is saying under the articles.. commerce between the members, the states has a defect, and commerce has been turned over to the federal government for regulation among the members, the states, ..it never gives congress power to regulate inside the states...that's a state power.



MoSurveyor said:
When pollution passes from one state to another it's no longer inside the state. Hence, the EPA. Is Texas putting up a 20 mile high wall to stop their air pollution from entering Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico? It will also need to be a very deep wall to make sure those pesky water pollutants don't migrate underground, too. Well, if they do all that you let me know and we'll talk again.
Click to expand...

you putting the cart before the horse.

the federal government is here to solve disputes between states when problems occur.

they are not given power to dictate to states, you shall not do!

the EPA is not a constitutional duty, its not enumerated, ...therefore according to the 10th amendment its a state power.
 
Henrin said:
I just don't get it. Why would a yuppie bar want to be in that location?
Click to expand...
Relatively close to where they work and live.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Wait. Now you're going to run to the courts after rejecting everything else the courts have said over countless threads?!? You get 3/3 for that one! Too funny!

:lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

well if you look at a thread in this section ,about returning senators appointment back to the states...i stated in there i would get rid of u.s. code 29 152....i just stated it to you it was law, i dont like it .........but its law......now it you want to discuss whether it legal or not that's another matter.

so your only making yourself look silly, by your statement.


MoSurveyor said:
But you really should look closer at what you cite. This is from Subchapter II - National Labor Relations - Definitions and starts off with "When used in this subchapter ---".
Click to expand...

well do you not see these entities being treated as people?..yes they are.



MoSurveyor said:
Does this mean you are you willing to accept everything in Title 29 as gospel? You might want to read it over before you decide to answer - there may be things in there with which you disagree. In fact, I'd bet there are plenty of things in there you reject out of hand.
Click to expand...

government can make code, however it must be within the constitution, and most of what government does is unconstitutional, becuase they are limited by said constitution to only 18 duties.../which is what makes me a libertarian
 
MoSurveyor said:
You here I thought you just agreed pollution has victims.

Make up your mind!
Click to expand...

We are not talking about pollution. We are talking about the "crime" of engaging in trade without a government-issued permission slip. You have not demonstrated how this "crime" does any damage to anyone's person or property.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no such thing as a constitutional right..that's false, you have natural rights.
Click to expand...
The only "natural" rights, of you want to call them that, are the right to try to survive and the right to try to procreate. Everything else is pretty much man-made.


ernst barkmann said:
ask yourself.. if you have no right to property, can you make decisions regarding your own body.......no
Click to expand...
My body isn't property. You guys, I swear ... :roll:


And, if we REALLY want to get philosophical here, I don't believe we have conscious free will, so that line of attack is useless with me.


ernst barkmann said:
if people have no right to property, then that would mean all property people possess, would come from the government, and they would have control over you in ever aspect of life.
Click to expand...
Other than the obvious abilities power gives one, you are absolutely correct. Without others - that means government of one kind or another - who would recognize your ownership of anything?


ernst barkmann said:
property rights are the cornerstone of ALL rights.
Click to expand...
So says one theory. :shrug:
There are many other theories out there.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that's true....and when one state pollutes another state, its time for the federal government to step in and settle the dispute between the two

that is power under the constitution given to the court in this kind of case, and here it is:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Click to expand...
Oh, good. Then you agree all the people upriver from us can no longer use the Missouri as their dumping ground! Excellent! :D


Being more realistic, what state in their right mind would allow anyone or anything out of state to put any kind of pollution in their air or water? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. I suggest you do your homework with regards to the EPA before you start tripping over yourself.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The only "natural" rights, of you want to call them that, are the right to try to survive and the right to try to procreate. Everything else is pretty much man-made.
Click to expand...

sorry no.... natural rights, are rights natural to the body.

its natural to :
speak
worship
assemble
be secure
in ones property/person.

the constitution does not grant or give any right, you will not see those words.

most man made rights are rights to commodities, providing the people with something, which own constitution does not do.



MoSurveyor said:
My body isn't property. You guys, I swear ... :roll:

And, if we REALLY want to get philosophical here, I don't believe we have conscious free will, so that line of attack is useless with me.
Click to expand...

who controls you, make decisions for you.........you!

who has authority over you?.............theres no authority in any constitution, that's gives government any authority, so it must be ...you!


MoSurveyor said:
Other than the obvious abilities power gives one, you are absolutely correct. Without others - that means government of one kind or another - who would recognize your ownership of anything?
Click to expand...

government is here to secure my rights, they dont give me power or the ability to own property, they protect it when its under assault.


MoSurveyor said:
So says one theory. :shrug:
There are many other theories out there.
Click to expand...

if i dont have the right to property, then i cannot protect myself with a weapon,

if i have no right to property meaning a home some place to live, then where i stand i have no authority.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what to you think you are doing by telling me i have not a right to run my business according to my likes, or my right to association.<snip>
Click to expand...
Blah-blah-blah, blah, blah, blah. There, you like that better?

You're repeating the same posts as before. Would you like me to link them so you can review our previous discussion down that road?


ernst barkmann said:
you putting the cart before the horse.
the federal government is here to solve disputes between states when problems occur.
they are not given power to dictate to states, you shall not do!
the EPA is not a constitutional duty, its not enumerated, ...therefore according to the 10th amendment its a state power.
Click to expand...
There will always be a dispute over pollution. That's a no-brainer for anyone. No one wants to drink polluted water or breath polluted air. Is that really what YOU want? Do YOU live downwind from an uncontrolled steel mill or coal power plant?

The steel mills of Pennsylvania turned thousands of acres of forest east of them into stumps and barren wasteland. Industry around Lake Erie almost killed it from water pollution. it was worse than an open sewer because of all the toxins. You've seen the recent pictures from Beijing where they couldn't see a half mile from smog? LA used to look like that a good portion of the year. I guess you're just not old enough to know what life was like prior to the EPA. It didn't just pop up out of nowhere on some kind of mystical whim. We were killing ourselves and they system in place wasn't working to stop it. If you want to preserving the nation an abuse of power then you go right ahead. You can't sell it here because I've witnessed the changes.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Oh, good. Then you agree all the people upriver from us can no longer use the Missouri as their dumping ground! Excellent! :D
Click to expand...

OF COARSE, YOU CANT DUMP AND DESTROY OTHERS PROPERTY.

MoSurveyor said:
Being more realistic, what state in their right mind would allow anyone or anything out of state to put any kind of pollution in their air or water? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. I suggest you do your homework with regards to the EPA before you start tripping over yourself.
Click to expand...

again does the federal government have authority over the land, water and air of a state ...no.... every state is sovereign..to say otherwise is to say we have a national government, and we dont ....its a federal one, a separation of powers.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.--- james madison federalist 39

the federal government is supposed to be the arbitrator of problems between states, not the ruler of states.
 
ernst barkmann said:
here is the constitution:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;<snip>
Click to expand...
National air traffic control is obviously not an intrastate endeavour. Quit being silly.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Simple? By a guy twice his size?
Tell us bad man, what would you have done?
Click to expand...

Really!?!?!?!?!? It looks to me that Schulz and Stossel were about the same height. Schultz may have outweighed him by a bit - but twice his size?!?!?!?!?!? Stossel was not a hobbit.

What would I have done? If I had made a reputation preaching to the nation the dangers of lawsuits until it comes out of my rectum like a bad case of diarrhea after a bad burrito - I would have take the slap and moved on rather than prove to the world what a hypocritical jerk I was.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well if you look at a thread in this section ,about returning senators appointment back to the states...i stated in there i would get rid of u.s. code 29 152....i just stated it to you it was law, i dont like it .........but its law......now it you want to discuss whether it legal or not that's another matter.

so your only making yourself look silly, by your statement.
Click to expand...
The National Labor Relations Board has nothing to do with this discussion so the definition used for that subsection is useless to you as a rebuttal for the claim that businesses are persons. You're the one that looks silly, here.


ernst barkmann said:
well do you not see these entities being treated as people?..yes they are.
Click to expand...
Animals are treated as people with respect to some laws. For example, you can't torture certain animals. Does that make them persons now?


ernst barkmann said:
government can make code, however it must be within the constitution, and most of what government does is unconstitutional, becuase they are limited by said constitution to only 18 duties.../which is what makes me a libertarian
Click to expand...
And all you have are those libertarian ideals to back up the erroneous claims you've made in this thread. In other words, you really have nothing.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I should never have to be concerned that an airport, railway yard, or any other pollution source will be built anywhere near my property without the input of myself and the other people effected by it.

You're still living in Fantasy Land and with every post you add to the long lost of reasons things are done the way they are instead of your way.
Click to expand...

But yet the same poster has no trouble living in a community with municipal zoning laws and enjoys the benefits of doing so. He could back up his hollow words by moving to a place without such restrictions that he pretends to hate and not support - but he does not.

The same goes for enjoying the benfits of things built with the power of eminent domain. He uses those and enjoys the benefits of them.

I have learned in life that do not listen so much to what people say about what they believe as its mostly empty self serving BS. Judge a man by his actions.
 
Federalist said:
We are not talking about pollution. We are talking about the "crime" of engaging in trade without a government-issued permission slip. You have not demonstrated how this "crime" does any damage to anyone's person or property.
Click to expand...
I've repeatedly shown how people and other businesses can be damaged by unlicensed businesses. You just haven't been paying attention.
 
Federalist said:
It's not a contract because it is not entered into voluntarily by all parties.
Click to expand...

It is called The Social Contract. And you give your consent to it everyday by freely living here, staying here and enjoying the very benefits you pretend to condemn. Of course, you can opt out of the social contract any time you want to. That is what the people who founded this country did. Of course, they were people of principle who actually backed up their proclamations of belief with actions that matched.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I've repeatedly shown how people and other businesses can be damaged by unlicensed businesses. You just haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

Your examples are not convincing. You fail to show how not having a piece of paper harms anyone. Actions harm people, not being without a piece of paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom