• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
So you think the rights in the constitution aren't "natural rights"? It's good to see some of you guys finally coming to your senses.


And he can operate as a bigot all he wants as long as he doesn't license as an OTTP business because that would be misrepresentation and deception.


more missing reading from you.....did you see the words business corporations , after natural....no you just passe over it without looking.

wrong its not a misrepresentation, statutory law, does not overrule a person, or business rights......discrimination does not apply to people or business in the constitution....and you know what the constitution says, but you just pass over it too.
 
more missing reading from you.....did you see the words business corporations , after natural....no you just passe over it without looking.
"i have been very clear..........a person or business has rights.
and government has no authority using statue laws, to take away those rights which are listed in the Constitution."
And look at what you wrote below: "... business in the constitution"


Yep! That certainly looks like you're saying businesses have constitutional rights. Pretty poor wording if that's not what you're saying - don't blame me for that.

And if you are saying that businesses have rights in the constitution then you're either:

1. saying the rights in the constitution aren't "natural rights" OR
2. saying businesses have "natural rights" (as you guys put it).

Take your pick and stick with it - you can't have both because they exclude each other.


wrong its not a misrepresentation, statutory law, does not overrule a person, or business rights......discrimination does not apply to people or business in the constitution....and you know what the constitution says, but you just pass over it too.
If you're not OTTP then don't have an OTTP business because that sure as hell is misrepresentation and deception on your part. License as a private club or whatever instead of OTTP and no one will care that you're a bigot. Hint: You also can't advertise 10 cent burgers then sell them for $5. That's also dishonest and causes harm.
 
Last edited:
And look at what you wrote below: "... business in the constitution"


Yep! That certainly looks like you're saying businesses have constitutional rights. Pretty poor wording if that's not what you're saying - don't blame me for that.

And if you are saying that businesses have rights in the constitution then you're either:

1. saying the rights in the constitution aren't "natural rights" OR
2. saying businesses have "natural rights" (as you guys put it).

Take your pick and stick with it - you can't have both because they exclude each other.


If you're not OTTP then don't have an OTTP business because that sure as hell is misrepresentation and deception on your part. License as a private club or whatever instead of OTTP and no one will care that you're a bigot. Hint: You also can't advertise 10 cent burgers then sell them for $5. That's also dishonest and causes harm.

are you lost??? i have over and over told you rights are becuase u.s. code has made than a person....for a bushiness like a corporation.

lose your steering wheel becuase you all over the road.

natural rights are indicative of a flesh and blood person.
 
are you lost??? i have over and over told you rights are becuase u.s. code has made than a person....for a bushiness like a corporation.

lose your steering wheel becuase you all over the road.

natural rights are indicative of a flesh and blood person.
I believe the topic of Civil Rights is also part of the US Code. Are you now conceding that discrimination is illegal for a business? What the US Code has given the US Code can take away! :)
 
Last edited:
I believe the topic of Civil Rights is also part of the US Code. Are you now conceding that discrimination is illegal for a business? What the US Code has given the US Code can take away! :)

i have already stated that 99% [ becuase they are so far over the number of 18] of what government does is constitutional, and when i say that...you dont like it.

and the government uses u.s. code to do many things......which most are unconstitutional, becuase its outside their 18 powers...........business is outside their 18 powers.....so under the constitution, congress.....cannot make a corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies a person..i told you why they do it and i said that back in another post by saying .........."i am telling you what government does"

under the constitution government has no authority, be it using code........ over people or business, becuase government is given no authority to pass laws on people or business ........constitutions are written to limit governments ONLY.

the constitution states that the federal government only has authority over...............ONLY pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors.<---------it can only punish these people

the constitution states that congress shall make no laws infringing on the rights of the people

as we have discussed before by what authority in the constitution does it give congress powers to create u.s.code [statutory laws] establishing discrimination laws on people or business, to make such a law is placing a limit, ..where is a limit placed on people or business in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
as we have discussed before by what authority in the constitution does it give congress powers to create u.s.code [statutory laws] establishing discrimination laws on people or business, to make such a law is placing a limit, ..where is a limit placed on people or business in the constitution.
Where is business mentioned in the constitution at all?
 
Where is business mentioned in the constitution at all?

its not mentioned at all.

where in Congress powers is business mentioned.....nothing there either.

the constitution was written to setup government and limit government power to certain things, and Madison put's it.......few and defined.
 
its not mentioned at all.

where in Congress powers is business mentioned.....nothing there either.

the constitution was written to setup government and limit government power to certain things, and Madison put's it.......few and defined.
So a businesses have no "rights", from the constitution or otherwise. Instead, what they have are laws governing their formation and behavior with some caveats from the Fed when that behavior effects interstate commerce.
 
So a businesses have no "rights", from the constitution or otherwise. Instead, what they have are laws governing their formation and behavior with some caveats from the Fed when that behavior effects interstate commerce.

business rights..no, but government has made it so....which i and you dont agree with...this gives them power to petition government which is a bad thing.

however a person does have rights over his own property, to run as he will.

the commerce clause was not written to give government authority over business or people.

it was written to giver congress final authority of commerce laws the state government would create, the founders did not anymore trade wars and barriers between states.

business and citizens dont make commerce laws, governments do...why would government need commerce authority over business or people then, since they cant make any laws.

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

commerce over people and business came in 1942 Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.


the government had put limits of the growing of wheat, and Fliburn went over the limit, but not to sell, but only to feed it to his cattle.

the USSC said this effected commerce and place it into government hands...........which is a ridiculous decision.

where does government get authority to limit growing things........ nowhere.
 
business rights..no, but government has made it so....which i and you dont agree with...this gives them power to petition government which is a bad thing.
If that's what you believe then my response is still, What the government gives the government can take away.


however a person does have rights over his own property, to run as he will.
He can't advertise $0.10 burgers when he's selling them for $10.


the commerce clause was not written to give government authority over business or people.
If part of their business is interstate commerce then of course it does.



business and citizens dont make commerce laws, governments do...why would government need commerce authority over business or people then, since they cant make any laws.
Then you aren't very familiar with those "papers" you constantly quote. I suggest you read more instead of just the special excerpts your bias sites bold for you.
 
If that's what you believe then my response is still, What the government gives the government can take away.


thats true, however government cannot legally give rights, only privileges.


He can't advertise $0.10 burgers when he's selling them for $10.

why would anyone do that?.......people would see your lying, and never come back......he would be a stupid businessman.


If part of their business is interstate commerce then of course it does.


read the founders, they state the government has power over commerce on those who make commerce laws......people and business dont make commerce laws, only governments do.



Then you aren't very familiar with those "papers" you constantly quote. I suggest you read more instead of just the special excerpts your bias sites bold for you.

name for me a person or a business who created a federal law, everyone must obey.
 
thats true, however government cannot legally give rights, only privileges.
Same thing applies either way.


why would anyone do that?.......people would see your lying, and never come back......he would be a stupid businessman.
Yes, bigots are often very stupid. That doesn't mean I want to waste $10 in gas and an hour of my precious time - not counting lunch - making a trip for $0.10 burgers that cost $10 when all I have is $5 to buy lunch.


read the founders, they state the government has power over commerce on those who make commerce laws......people and business dont make commerce laws, only governments do.
Again, it's not the founders opinions that count, it's the courts that interpret the contract.


On a side note: The founders have been dead for two centuries and didn't even dream that "interstate commerce" would someday be 10 minutes to cross three states. The world has changed and we either adapt to it or die.
 
Same thing applies either way.

government gives privileges all the time, they dont give rights.



Yes, bigots are often very stupid. That doesn't mean I want to waste $10 in gas and an hour of my precious time - not counting lunch - making a trip for $0.10 burgers that cost $10 when all I have is $5 to buy lunch.

people are allowed to me stupid, but someone to be in business to be stupid enough to say something is .10 when it cost more.......does not sound like someone in business very long.



Again, it's not the founders opinions that count, it's the courts that interpret the contract.

On a side note: The founders have been dead for two centuries and didn't even dream that "interstate commerce" would someday be 10 minutes to cross three states. The world has changed and we either adapt to it or die.


our commerce clause was created for the states, BECAUSE it is they would make the commerce LAWS..business and people dont make laws.

the commerce clause was becuase states were warring among themselves with LAWS.

the constitution did not give the the federal government authority over the people AT ALL....except for the 3 i have mentioned, ...because those are the only 3 federal powers an individual citizens could violate.

why would the founders and the people of that time create a document, which would place a constant on themselves?

commerce was taken over by the federal government in 1942 ...BECAUSE a farmer was growing wheat to feed his cattle, and the federal government said it effected commerce, becuase he was growing it, he didn't have to go buy it..so they must now control commerce...thats ridiculous.

you say the world has changed in 200 years...yes thats very true, however the constitution is still with us, and it demands that all new powers of congress must be through the amendment process, when congress fails to follow the law, they make law weak, and the people less lawful by their actions.
 
our commerce clause was created for the states, BECAUSE it is they would make the commerce LAWS..business and people dont make laws.

the commerce clause was becuase states were warring among themselves with LAWS.

the constitution did not give the the federal government authority over the people AT ALL....except for the 3 i have mentioned, ...because those are the only 3 federal powers an individual citizens could violate.

why would the founders and the people of that time create a document, which would place a constant on themselves?

commerce was taken over by the federal government in 1942 ...BECAUSE a farmer was growing wheat to feed his cattle, and the federal government said it effected commerce, becuase he was growing it, he didn't have to go buy it..so they must now control commerce...thats ridiculous.

you say the world has changed in 200 years...yes thats very true, however the constitution is still with us, and it demands that all new powers of congress must be through the amendment process, when congress fails to follow the law, they make law weak, and the people less lawful by their actions.
You should follow the case histories instead of just spouting what your skewed and bias sites put in your mouth. It "started" with Marshall in 1824:

Commerce among the States | Heritage.org


The constitution itself says the court will decide what is and isn't constitutional. It's not up to you or me or the founders old notes.
 
You should follow the case histories instead of just spouting what your skewed and bias sites put in your mouth. It "started" with Marshall in 1824:

Commerce among the States | Heritage.org


The constitution itself says the court will decide what is and isn't constitutional. It's not up to you or me or the founders old notes.

can you understand this.......people/ business do not make laws........government makes laws.

why does government need to regulate commerce on people and business when they dont make laws.

the constitution handed over commerce between estates to the federal government, the Constitution states, among the states , not in the states.

the constitution does not give powers to government over the people.
 
can you understand this.......people/ business do not make laws........government makes laws.

why does government need to regulate commerce on people and business when they dont make laws.

the constitution handed over commerce between estates to the federal government, the Constitution states, among the states , not in the states.

the constitution does not give powers to government over the people.

New laws usually begin from public compliant of some kind.
 
New laws usually begin from public compliant of some kind.

if state governments were instituting laws, which affect the commerce of the people, then that is why the federal government was given final authority over commerce which the states would be involved in.

a person or business cannot make a commerce law so why do they need to be regulated by the federal government?....the constitution gave no power to the federal government over the people.

why would we throw off a king, to install a government on our back.

examine the 18 powers of congress, and tell me where the people and the powers of congress intersect in the personal life's of the people....no where.

only if an individual citizen, commits piracy, counterfeits , treason, and with the 16th... tax fraud, does the government have power over that individual.

congress has NO legislative authority outside of d..c or unless were states have agreed with them, on federal buildings--- article 1 section 8
 
if state governments were instituting laws, which affect the commerce of the people, then that is why the federal government was given final authority over commerce which the states would be involved in.

a person or business cannot make a commerce law so why do they need to be regulated by the federal government?....the constitution gave no power to the federal government over the people.

why would we throw off a king, to install a government on our back.

examine the 18 powers of congress, and tell me where the people and the powers of congress intersect in the personal life's of the people....no where.

only if an individual citizen, commits piracy, counterfeits , treason, and with the 16th... tax fraud, does the government have power over that individual.

congress has NO legislative authority outside of d..c or unless were states have agreed with them, on federal buildings--- article 1 section 8

You're wrong and have been shown wrong, but you're skipping the point. Read it again. The response is limited to where new laws start. :coffeepap
 
You're wrong and have been shown wrong, but you're skipping the point. Read it again. The response is limited to where new laws start. :coffeepap

excuse me, how can government make laws, which have rule over us, since they are not given that power in the constitution....where is the power delegated in the constitution to do that...show me.
 
excuse me, how can government make laws, which have rule over us, since they are not given that power in the constitution....where is the power delegated in the constitution to do that...show me.

By the consent of the governed.

Again, my response was limited to where new laws start.
 
By the consent of the governed.

Again, my response was limited to where new laws start.

government cannot make laws outside of its powers, that is why the constitution states this:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"
 
government cannot make laws outside of its powers, that is why the constitution states this:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

And ours doesn't. You just don't know enough to know this.

But like I said, my response was limited to where new laws start.
 
And ours doesn't. You just don't know enough to know this.

But like I said, my response was limited to where new laws start.

really they dont, where is education, housing, foreign aid, EPA, parks, i can go on.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


do you see government land in there?......no
 
really they dont, where is education, housing, foreign aid, EPA, parks, i can go on.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


do you see government land in there?......no

Yep, all attached to the Constitution. All Constitutional.

I notice you still haven't addressed the actual comment I made. Typical.
 
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? --james madison
 
Back
Top Bottom