But it still violates the freedom of association and is against the Founders' original intent. That's the problem, just like the Eighteenth Amendment was a problem of government intrusion.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that prevents private discrimination. If there were, there would be no argument about any of this. The legislation doing away with private discrimination took refuge in the Commerce Clause, with the Supreme Court stretching the meaning from actual interstate commerce to anything which could, taken in the aggregate all around the country, have an effect on interstate commerce. This was a bastardization of the constitution, not adherence to it. The primary concern of the founders in drafting the constitution was tyranny by Congress, which is why they enumerated the powers of the legislature. They never intended the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to be expanded such that Congress could regulate all public transactions.
As you note the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce what you call a bastardization is the application of equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Except that commerce is different than freedom of association and specifically the Constitution empowers the government to regulate commerce. As I noted above the 14th Amendment extends that through equal protection. Also consider that the Founders did realize that things would change and the 14th, as the 18th, amendments were ratified through that process. They carry as much weight Constitutionally as the 1st Amendment.
Don't even start on the Commerce Clause... <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SDf5_Thqsk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SDf5_Thqsk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
So, you think that because someone can't read, their opinion has no value? Boy, that is a truly disgusting opinion. Just because someone can't read doesn't mean they can't think- and saying that it's OK for a business to have a whites-only policy? Wow, I'm amazed at the things said on this forum sometimes.
I haven't watched the video but considering that courts have upheld things like the American with Disabilities act (the anti-discrimination act that I am most familiar with) what I said about the application of the Commerce Clause and equal protection is the law of the land. You are of course free to disagree but your view isn't what is law.
Actually, the Commerce Clause allows for Congress to pass laws relating to INTERSTATE commerce (technically congress has the power: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes). I don't think Madison foresaw a local restaurant serving customers as a matter of commerce among the several States. This was all about making sure states didn't levy tariffs against each other, making sure everyone was on the same monetary system, that contracts would be honored in both states, etc. It had nothing to do with telling a business owner how to run his business. Interestingly, the court did not use the equal protection clause in ruling that laws against private discrimination were Constitutional, they relied on the Commerce Clause. When laws were originally passed based on the 14th amendment, those laws were struck down as unconstitution in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883. That is because the 14th amendment relates to state action, and there is no state actor when a man says black people can't eat at his restaurant. Here is the relevant portion of the 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It was in later cases such as Katzenbach v. McClung where the could relied on the expanded (and yes bastardized) view of the Commerce Clause as was seen in Wickard v. Filburn. I think that if someone cannot read, they are unlikely to be informed enough to make good decisions on who should be running the most powerful country in the world. I don't know what fantasy world you live in where there are all of these illiterate people that have a solid grasp on policy issues at play in national politics. I have not seen that posted once. I have posted that the government has no place in making that determination. The market can correct for it if someone has a whites only policy. They are simply limiting their consumer base, and thus the punishment for having such a policy is built into the policy itself.
We aren't going to learn anything are we? We're just going to keep acting like our farts smell like roses, and watch Romney get elected in two years, and it will be our own fault.
The ability to regulate commerce has everything to do with telling an owner how to run his business. That is the point of commerce is how business is conducted. Now I agree with you that prior to the Civil War this was limited to only interstate commerce, international trade and business with Indian Tribes but if your business had to do with any of those the government certainly could tell you how to conduct business. Madison might not have foresaw that being used to regulate local business but lets not forget that Madison was also writing at a time when slavery still existed and only white men could vote. Citing an 1883 case might not be that relevant considering that Plessy V. Ferguson was 1896 so the understanding of equal protection was a bit different than the the 1960's and 1990's when the Civil Rights act was passed and the American with Disabilities Act. Also The Civil Rights act was enacted under both the the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 [rquoter]Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. [/rquoter] While yes the 14th Amendment mentions a state actor it mentions equal protection. If you look at the sentence structure it separates "equal protection" from the rest of the sentence with a semi-colon indicating that this isn't necessarily strictly related to the rest of the sentence regarding restriction solely on state. Anyway as even you recognize the courts have taken equal protection to apply to things beyond just state actors.
I've read pages of gripes from both sides about misinformation etc. that won or lost the elections. My question to each of you is this: Did you go out and walk your precinct and talk to your fellow precinct voters? Whether you advocate one party over the other or one belief system over others, then shut up until you do what tea party members did and are doing -- walk your precinct and motivate sympathetic votes for your viewpoint.
Excellent. If we would all do that, there would IMO be less temptation for parties to rely on ballot box fraud.
I went out and campaigned (sign waving, lit drops) for my gubanatorial candidate for statewide election this past election and have done similar things in previous elections.
I already posted what the purpose of the clause was, but yes for those limited purposes, regulation of individual businesses could be done. For example, an individual couldn't define a pound differently when selling flour across state lines. Perhaps it would have been more precise of me to say that the Commerce Clause had nothing to do with telling an individual business owner with whom to conduct business. I am sure the author of the clause didn't know what it meant because slavery existed and voting was white only. Odd how when they wanted to change the method of apportioning representation they used a constitutional amendment to change the words, but when they wanted to change the meaning of the Commerce Clause from the regulation of interstate commerce to laws about whatever they feel like making laws for they didn't bother. That was when they were deciding cases that relied on the 14th amendment. The Congress wised up and tried a different tack. Such is the nature of jurisprudence. You might want to read it again. Try to figure out what the subject of the portion following the semi-colon is. Ask yourself, "who is deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?" A good clue is that said subject would need to have a jurisdiction as well as laws. Does a restaurant have a jurisdiction? Laws? No, I recognize that the courts have allowed anti-discrimination legislation under a bastardized view of the Commerce Clause. I think doing so was blatantly unconstitutional. Any case that relies on Wickard v. Filburn should probably be overturned, but I don't see it happening.
Very commendable IMO. However, my vote has never been swayed by a sign or political literature. My vote has been changed by civil discussion over coffee (or tea), and I like to think that I have motivated a few voters myself. Regardless of the scope of political activity, participation in the process IMO is the key.
Actually yes it does because the government can decide to place sanctions against people preventing who you conduct business with. Under licensure it can also determine who an individual business owner can conduct business with. The point is is that Madison's view of the world while important isn't necessarily the view of the world that we have had since the Civil War. It is the government's responsibility to enforce equal protection and as such they have jurisdiction to regulate such actions in the public sphere. A restaurant that serves the public is therefore under such jurisdiction. Further the Carleone Products ruling from 1938 allows the the US government to regulate such private businesses and within that ruling there is the a basis for applying the Equal Protection clause to regulate commerce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause [rquoter]Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence stems from footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), a Commerce Clause and substantive due process case. In 1937, the Court (in what was called the "switch in time that saved nine") had loosened its rules for deciding whether Congress could regulate certain commercial activities. In discussing the new presumption of constitutionality that the Court would apply to economic legislation, Justice Harlan Stone wrote: [P]rejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.[19] [/rquoter] As noted from the link I cited earlier the government is using relying upon both Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment as justification. Anyway if we are were to take your argument that the Commerce Clause doesn't extend such jurisdiction and it is left to private businesses how they conduct business then we would be doing away with all regulations such as food safety, truth in labelling and etc.. Now I suspect Rand Paul feels that way and perhaps you might too but that is not a view that holds much sway legally. You are free to disagree and think that it is unconstitutional but again the courts haven't sided with you on that. Also while Wickard v. Filburn is an important ruling as noted there are rulings predating that such as Carleone Products, that supports the argument that government can regulate private businesses, also as noted the legal basis of applying equal protection in regard to commerce doesn't come from Wickard.
News flash: literate people can be just as uninformed as illiterate people. So, do you propose a test that someone has to pass in order to vote? Fine. But if that's the case, then just as if someone is blind or deaf and has to have a modified version of said test, illiterate people who are 18 and older have the right to have the test orally presented to them. Again, people who are illiterate aren't stupid, Stupid. I have a few people on my dad's side of the family who are poor folk from south Texas, did not receive an education and struggle mightily with reading, yet I believe they are actually more informed about politics than many who can read. So if you want the testing method, you have to have modifications available for the disabled, and I would include the blind, deaf, illiterate, and even those with a mental disability- you know, those people can actually think too, Stupid.
