• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 your saying the government CONTROLS THE PEOPLE....they the master and we the servant!...........thats brilliant!
And who puts the various decision makers in power??? The People. If we don't like what they're doing we can always throw them out and get someone else in there that will do what we want - whatever that may be.
 
EPA not in the constitution, and the federal government is no jurisdiction over state or private land per the constitution.
What state in their right mind would allow a neighboring state to send pollution downstream, whether it's in water or air? They wouldn't. The result is that no pollution is possible, which is also impossible if we want to keep any industry in America at all. Obviously, the onus will fall on the federal government to resolve the issue of pollution.

You should use logic a little more instead of being obstinate.
 
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.
People and businesses effect not only interstate commerce but foreign commerce, as well, by what they produce. This should be obvious to anyone who has thought more than half a minute in the most simple terms of commodities, if nothing else, but it also applies to most goods and some services.


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.
The states can't make laws about interstate commerce, plain and simple. The states can't make laws about international commerce, plain and simple. Only Uncle Sam can do either of those things. Quit being dense.
 
John Stossel endorses senseless discrimination.

I'm shocked.
 
And who puts the various decision makers in power??? The People. If we don't like what they're doing we can always throw them out and get someone else in there that will do what we want - whatever that may be.

we put people in positions of power to run the government, we dont put them there to tell the people what to do.

government is made up of people...people with there own ideas, they cannot force their ideas on you when they were not elected, why do you believe becuase they are elected this gives them power over you to force those ideas?

their is no government authority over the people in the constitution.
 
What state in their right mind would allow a neighboring state to send pollution downstream, whether it's in water or air? They wouldn't. The result is that no pollution is possible, which is also impossible if we want to keep any industry in America at all. Obviously, the onus will fall on the federal government to resolve the issue of pollution.

You should use logic a little more instead of being obstinate.


are you not able to understand anything, if one state polluted another state that would be unlawful, and that would bring in the U.S. court system........as listed in the constitution "controversies between states"
 
that is becuase the people in power will always embellish themselves with more power.

It doesn't help the. Courts to give the president or congress power. Sorry, but that doesn't explain it.
 
People and businesses effect not only interstate commerce but foreign commerce, as well, by what they produce. This should be obvious to anyone who has thought more than half a minute in the most simple terms of commodities, if nothing else, but it also applies to most goods and some services.

people and business do not make commerce laws, ....... the problem under the articles, becuase states were at war with each other....business was not at war, the commerce was turned over to the federal government, for commerce AMONG the states, not inside them



The states can't make laws about interstate commerce, plain and simple. The states can't make laws about international commerce, plain and simple. Only Uncle Sam can do either of those things. Quit being dense.


you have no clue do you......
 
It doesn't help the. Courts to give the president or congress power. Sorry, but that doesn't explain it.

your not understanding.

every person no matter who they are is self-serving, which means they will always do things which work in their own interest, the founders talk of this, that is why they placed limitations on themselves with enumerated powers.

they knew if they had no limit on them, they would turn into wolves among sheep.

all people who find themselves int he halls of congress or where they are with power, always look to increase that power.
 
your not understanding.

every person no matter who they are is self-serving, which means they will always do things which work in their own interest, the founders talk of this, that is why they placed limitations on themselves with enumerated powers.

they knew if they had no limit on them, they would turn into wolves among sheep.

all people who find themselves int he halls of congress or where they are with power, always look to increase that power.
I understand this perfectly, and point to our checks and balances. The courts have no such dog in the fight.
 
I understand this perfectly, and point to our checks and balances. The courts have no such dog in the fight.

oh, even the court thru there decisions, never increase the government powers?

you know as well as i the court is 5 -4 in favor of conservatives, ...so it pits one side against the other, and its not supposed to have a side at all.
 
oh, even the court thru there decisions, never increase the government powers?

you know as well as i the court is 5 -4 in favor of conservatives, ...so it pits one side against the other, and its not supposed to have a side at all.

Pay attention. I said they had no motivation to do so.

And they really have a side. One may tend to think more liberally, and another more conservatively, but not sides. I suspect they have very interesting debates in private. But always they base their argument in law. While you don't understand how complicated language can be, they do.
 
Pay attention. I said they had no motivation to do so.

And they really have a side. One may tend to think more liberally, and another more conservatively, but not sides. I suspect they have very interesting debates in private. But always they base their argument in law. While you don't understand how complicated language can be, they do.

LOL.....the constitution is a very easy to read document, as when it was first put to paper by Gouverneur Morris
 
LOL.....the constitution is a very easy to read document, as when it was first put to paper by Gouverneur Morris

Have you ever heard of the communication triangle? Your are factually wrong to view any document as being so simple as to avod all debate.
 
oh tell me where the constitution is difficult.

How many cases have there been? How many rulings did you get wrong? You choose to blame it in some funny business, but honest people merely disagreed on what meant what. Can't you see this?
 
How many cases have there been? How many rulings did you get wrong? You choose to blame it in some funny business, but honest people merely disagreed on what meant what. Can't you see this?


i just asked you a question, and you didn't answer it.
 
i just asked you a question, and you didn't answer it.

Because s it's a long answer. Much of the court cases I linked show the disagreement. Cases are studied showing different people read the same passages. Take the second amendment for example. How many times has that been disputed? Do you doubt that I can't find at least two different readings of what is said in that amendment alone?
 
Because s it's a long answer. Much of the court cases I linked show the disagreement. Cases are studied showing different people read the same passages. Take the second amendment for example. How many times has that been disputed? Do you doubt that I can't find at least two different readings of what is said in that amendment alone?


how is it long, take something from the constitution which you think is hard to understand......is that difficult?
 
Maybe seeing a man escort his pre-school age daughter to the public restroom in a restaurant while bigots called them niggers would have some effect on those not indoctrinated to bigotry. Of course the bigots cheer at the freedom to do so 40 years ago in Mississippi. Those were the "good ole days" to a great many here.
 
how is it long, take something from the constitution which you think is hard to understand......is that difficult?
Are you saying the second amendment to the Constitution is in the Constitution?
 
Back
Top Bottom