• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
It clearly does. The ruling states clear that it doesn't violate the constitution and spells out exactly why.

the ruling?....what ruling.........i dont see a ruling in the constitution.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated [spelled out in the constitution] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
the ruling?....what ruling.........i dont see a ruling in the constitution.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated [spelled out in the constitution] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That just shows how novice you are.
 
you just cant come up with anything can you.

you cant get around the constitution so you create things....well that does not work, with supreme law.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're funny. Tiresome in your ignorance. But funny all the same. Until you address the points made by he links, I can only make fun of you. You have to participate to advance the argument.
 
:lamo :lamo :lamo

You're funny. Tiresome in your ignorance. But funny all the same. Until you address the points made by he links, I can only make fun of you. You have to participate to advance the argument.

the points you made.....i asked you to address the constitution, and show me where government is given authority, ...yet you have not done it....you know you cant, and still you persist in fantasy.
 
the points you made.....i asked you to address the constitution, and show me where government is given authority, ...yet you have not done it....you know you cant, and still you persist in fantasy.

The best way to do that is in the context of the things you take issue with. In that context, I posted legal arguments, court decisions and history. This is a full explanation and not the mindless repetition you do. Read them. Contemplate what they say. Dig below the superficial.
 
The best way to do that is in the context of the things you take issue with. In that context, I posted legal arguments, court decisions and history. This is a full explanation and not the mindless repetition you do. Read them. Contemplate what they say. Dig below the superficial.

sorry .......you cant get around the wording of the constitution.

you would love to but its not possible, the founders were very clear government is limited to enumerated powers only.....not rulings made to create powers.
 
sorry .......you cant get around the wording of the constitution.

you would love to but its not possible, the founders were very clear government is limited to enumerated powers only.....not rulings made to create powers.

You must first understand the wording. One if the links went into that as well. Your merely a novice who doesn't know what he doesn't know. That's no sin. But not being willing to learn more, that's sad.
 
You must first understand the wording. One if the links went into that as well. Your merely a novice who doesn't know what he doesn't know. That's no sin. But not being willing to learn more, that's sad.

the constitution is not hard, only for those that try to make it hard, everything is the constitution is explained by the founders, jay, Hamilton ,and Madison, only those things which are self evident are not explained, ....example: i dont need an explanation, that i have to be 35 yrs old to be senator.

Madison states commerce is a problem between the states under the articles, and to solve this problem the power of commerce between the states [ meaning state governments] is given handed over the the new federal government, so there will no longer be trade wars and barriers, which the states engaged in...not the people.

commerce inside of a state is left to the state to decide.

no way in the world can a man growing wheat in his field, so he can feed it to his cattle mean the federal government should regulate all commerce in america in the Wickard v. Filburn case.

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.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy[citation needed] his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
 
the constitution is not hard, only for those that try to make it hard, everything is the constitution is explained by the founders, jay, Hamilton ,and Madison, only those things which are self evident are not explained, ....example: i dont need an explanation, that i have to be 35 yrs old to be senator.

Madison states commerce is a problem between the states under the articles, and to solve this problem the power of commerce between the states [ meaning state governments] is given handed over the the new federal government, so there will no longer be trade wars and barriers, which the states engaged in...not the people.

commerce inside of a state is left to the state to decide.

no way in the world can a man growing wheat in his field, so he can feed it to his cattle mean the federal government should regulate all commerce in america in the Wickard v. Filburn case.

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.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy[citation needed] his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

If it was as clear as you believe, there would never have been any debate. The fact that there has and continues is evidence that you're likely wrong. It hubris fir a novice to think he knows all. The first step toward wisdom is to start with the fact you don't know.
 
If it was as clear as you believe, there would never have been any debate. The fact that there has and continues is evidence that you're likely wrong. It hubris fir a novice to think he knows all. The first step toward wisdom is to start with the fact you don't know.

man is self center and he will always work in his own interest, even those who hold seats of power, the founders speak of this.

even they knew limits must be placed on themselves, or they would turn into wolves among sheep.

i dont know?........i once thought as you did, i believed america was a democracy, and the founders give we the people the power, and government was constructed to work for the people.....however after reading the founders ...constitution, letters ,papers, i found this was not true at all, and it turned me upside down on my head.

the founders envisioned a union of states each independent of each other , sovereign, with their own laws, only bound together by the 18 power of congress was given, even the bill of rights did not even apply to the states.

when states argued among themselves then the federal government stepped in and solved the problem, when states violated the rights of its citizens under a state constitution, and the citizens felt he was not receiving justice they could petition the federal government to hear their case.

the federal government was not at all designed to be involved in the personal life's of the people, no where in congresses powers do you see the people and the powers of congress come together.

only 4 persons can be under legal federal government authority and i have named them many times.....pirates ,counterfeiters, traitors, and tax cheats...becuase they are the only ones which can violated any of the 18 powers of congress with their activities.
 
man is self center and he will always work in his own interest, even those who hold seats of power, the founders speak of this.

even they knew limits must be placed on themselves, or they would turn into wolves among sheep.

i dont know?........i once thought as you did, i believed america was a democracy, and the founders give we the people the power, and government was constructed to work for the people.....however after reading the founders ...constitution, letters ,papers, i found this was not true at all, and it turned me upside down on my head.

the founders envisioned a union of states each independent of each other , sovereign, with their own laws, only bound together by the 18 power of congress was given, even the bill of rights did not even apply to the states.

when states argued among themselves then the federal government stepped in and solved the problem, when states violated the rights of its citizens under a state constitution, and the citizens felt he was not receiving justice they could petition the federal government to hear their case.

the federal government was not at all designed to be involved in the personal life's of the people, no where in congresses powers do you see the people and the powers of congress come together.

only 4 persons can be under legal federal government authority and i have named them many times.....pirates ,counterfeiters, traitors, and tax cheats...becuase they are the only ones which can violated any of the 18 powers of congress with their activities.

Which, when the articles of in federation didn't work, they held their ground a kept it anyway.

No, wait, they adjusted. Strengthened the federal government.

I see no where in your rant any explanation for the courts ruling. That would have been my first question. Not sure why it's not yours.
 
Which, when the articles of in federation didn't work, they held their ground a kept it anyway.

No, wait, they adjusted. Strengthened the federal government.

I see no where in your rant any explanation for the courts ruling. That would have been my first question. Not sure why it's not yours.

under the articles of confederation ...commerce in states was at a stand still.

states were at war with each other.......1 state would be angry with another and would no longer ship to it raw materials.

states would institute trade barriers to protect their own state manufacturers, from the same product coming in from out of state.

to solve this problem, commerce between the states was turned over to the new federal government, to end all trade barriers and wars.........done of these wars or barriers were caused by the people, becuase they dont make commerce laws, state governmentd did.

commerce is the buying and selling or goods, ..it by the way is NOT the manufacture of goods.

commerce inside a state is left to the state government itself ,not the federal government.

the courts ruling on the 1942 commerce case was, ..that becuase filburn, grew wheat, and did not have to go buy it to......... feed his cattle this effected commerce.

fliburn grew the wheat only to feed his own cattle....where does government have the power to limit what a person grows........no power at all.
 
under the articles of confederation ...commerce in states was at a stand still.

states were at war with each other.......1 state would be angry with another and would no longer ship to it raw materials.

states would institute trade barriers to protect their own state manufacturers, from the same product coming in from out of state.

to solve this problem, commerce between the states was turned over to the new federal government, to end all trade barriers and wars.........done of these wars or barriers were caused by the people, becuase they dont make commerce laws, state governmentd did.

commerce is the buying and selling or goods, ..it by the way is NOT the manufacture of goods.

commerce inside a state is left to the state government itself ,not the federal government.

the courts ruling on the 1942 commerce case was, ..that becuase filburn, grew wheat, and did not have to go buy it to......... feed his cattle this effected commerce.

fliburn grew the wheat only to feed his own cattle....where does government have the power to limit what a person grows........no power at all.

And because they states couldn't fly right, we had to strengthen the federal government. See it yet?


Held. Yes. Appeals court ruling reversed and remanded.
Although the wheat may be entirely for personal consumption, it does compete for wheat in commerce, by taking away the demand for wheat by the one who grows it. As the one growing the wheat does not have to buy wheat, the demand for wheat goes down. When viewed in the aggregate (if everyone overgrew wheat “for personal consumption”), this decrease in demand would have a significant effect on interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) acknowledges that the effect of the single farmer may well be negligible to interstate commerce, but when viewed in the aggregate of all farmers “similarly situated” it may significantly affect the value of wheat in commerce.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...ederal-legislative-power/wickard-v-filburn/2/

Wickard v. Filburn
 
And because they states couldn't fly right, we had to strengthen the federal government. See it yet?


Wickard v. Filburn

states had problem ..we know this by the articles, that is why a constitution was created to solve those problems....between the states...not inside them.

the filburn case is about the federal government setting a limit on the growing of wheat, which fliburn did grow more than the limit, ..but only to feed to his cattle,...the court ruled becuase he grew the wheat this means he didn't have to buy it on the market and this effected commerce ,and the federal government must take over all commerce.

where does government get authority to tell someone how much to grow?.....the states in this case had nothing to do with this ruling, becuase it was under FDR, and his government controls.
 
states had problem ..we know this by the articles, that is why a constitution was created to solve those problems....between the states...not inside them.

the filburn case is about the federal government setting a limit on the growing of wheat, which fliburn did grow more than the limit, ..but only to feed to his cattle,...the court ruled becuase he grew the wheat this means he didn't have to buy it on the market and this effected commerce ,and the federal government must take over all commerce.

where does government get authority to tell someone how much to grow?.....the states in this case had nothing to do with this ruling, becuase it was under FDR, and his government controls.

I know, and I linked both the explanation and the case.
 
I know, and I linked both the explanation and the case.

the government has has also used the notion that becuase birds ,ducks ,water fowl... fly from one state to another this gives them the powers over lakes, steams and ponds, for the EPA......silly!
 
the government has has also used the notion that becuase birds ,ducks ,water fowl... fly from one state to another this gives them the powers over lakes, steams and ponds, for the EPA......silly!

Unless you're trying to deal with that issue, and citizens are pushing for it to be dealt with, and it is covered by a part of the constitution, this happens. Of course, it would not happen in a government run country.
 
Unless you're trying to deal with that issue, and citizens are pushing for it to be dealt with, and it is covered by a part of the constitution, this happens. Of course, it would not happen in a government run country.

EPA not in the constitution, and the federal government is no jurisdiction over state or private land per the constitution.
 
EPA not in the constitution, and the federal government is no jurisdiction over state or private land per the constitution.

Again, that doesn't matter. As our founding fathers adjusted, we have to adjust as we move forward. This isn't 1776. So, we have to address issues they didn't. Bottom up movements lead to these changes. And they had to be structured, often awkwardly, not to violate the Constitution. Occasionally there's an overreach. The courts then send it back. But it's too simplistic to say the EPA isn't in the Constitution.
 
Again, that doesn't matter. As our founding fathers adjusted, we have to adjust as we move forward. This isn't 1776. So, we have to address issues they didn't. Bottom up movements lead to these changes. And they had to be structured, often awkwardly, not to violate the Constitution. Occasionally there's an overreach. The courts then send it back. But it's too simplistic to say the EPA isn't in the Constitution.


where do you get these ideas, the founders are clear, only enumerated powers does the government have, if government can act at will then they are not limited, and can do anything they want, the founders did not create such a system of government, how do you justify violating article 1 section 8 clause 17.

do you see air, water land in the 18 powers of congress..no...all of those expect for what is in d.c. belongs to a states, or unless the state and the federal government have agree for ......federal buildings.
 
where do you get these ideas, the founders are clear, only enumerated powers does the government have, if government can act at will then they are not limited, and can do anything they want, the founders did not create such a system of government, how does you justify violating article 1 section 8 clause 17.

do you see air, water land in the 18 powers of congress..no...all of those expect for what is in d.c. belongs to a states, or unless the state and the federal government have agree for ......federal buildings.

This is why I compare you to a fundamentalist. Everything's always clear to you. Your mind can't even comprehend the fact that it isn't that clear, as one thing (amendment) builds off another. I've rarely met a fundamentalist who conceive the Bible ad anything but literal. You seem much that way. To closed to hear or see.

However, the evidence remains against you.
 
This is why I compare you to a fundamentalist. Everything's always clear to you. Your mind can't even comprehend the fact that it isn't that clear, as one thing (amendment) builds off another. I've rarely met a fundamentalist who conceive the Bible ad anything but literal. You seem much that way. To closed to hear or see.

However, the evidence remains against you.
no BOO, the founders were very clear on the constitution, and government role in people life's....its NO INVOLVEMENT at all.

and government has no authority outside of d.c. unless the state approves, A. 1 S. 8 clause 17
 
no BOO, the founders were very clear on the constitution, and government role in people life's....its NO INVOLVEMENT at all.

and government has no authority outside of d.c. unless the state approves, A. 1 S. 8 clause 17

Only to the closed minded novice. There would be no court cases if it were that clear.
 
Back
Top Bottom