bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Yea it is, but he is hardly the first politician with some kind of connection to unsavory people.
Rand Paul
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
sturg33
I
Does the civil rights act of 1964 apply to all races, sexes, sexual orientations, etc. etc? Or just African Americans?
I just don't understand why it so bad to believe that a private business owner should be allowed to refuse service to whomever he pleases. I can guarantee that if someone put a "no blacks allowed" sign on his window, he would be out of business within a few months. I certainly wouldn't go there.
But in an effort to protect individual liberty, how are you doing that by FORCING someone to serve someone a sandwich if he/she doesn't want to?
sturg33
I
I mean, the constitution is a very simple document of what the federal government is allowed to do. Can you show me where it allows the government to force private business owners to serve whoever the government tells them to? If so, I think you may have a point. If not, Ron Paul is simply abiding to the constitution. If individual states want to take measures erode private property rights, then that is one thing - but I don't see where the US Constitution allows the federal government to do so. If so, please show me.
sturg33
I
Rand (or Ron) have never said anything remotely racist. I've put the challenge out there to go find any clip of Ron Paul saying something racist and I won't hold my breath because I know nobody can find one
sturg33
I
To bravesnumberone's point, perhaps Obama should stop holding fundraisers with Bill Ayers - but that didn't stop you from voting for him
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I'd prefer that you discuss Rand Paul and Jack Hunter, but if you'd like to compare having a neo-confederate secessionist ghostwrite your book in 2011* with a student radical from the early 70s having hosted a single coffee meet n' greet benefiting Obama—whom he'd never met before—in 1995, go right ahead. The more you suggest that proximity to hinky people is an issue, the more you do Ron Paul—and possibly his son—a disservice. He's played cozy with racists, anti-Semites, and secessionist weirdos for decades. It's one reason I've never been tempted to jump on the bandwagon even when he's occasionally talking sense.
*and putting him on your staff, as both Pauls did.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
And in so doing, have missed the point entirely.
sturg33
I
To act as if secessionists are some crazy non existent group of people is naive. Hell, Rick Perry was a favorite to win the President just a year ago!
I don't know much about Jack Hunter - I've listent to some of his stuff when he campaigned for Ron Paul, but for those, there was nothing crazy being spouted
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
How about the ADA? Feel the same way?
Listen. You can disagree about the interpretation of the commerce clause. Fine. Many people do. That is not the same thing as being able to unequivocally say that Congress does not have that power. The Supreme Court has upheld the current interpretation.
Does the civil rights act of 1964 apply to all races, sexes, sexual orientations, etc. etc? Or just African Americans?
Is this an actual question? If it is, I'd suggest not arguing the issue (with me, anyway) until you are familiar enough with the law to answer to that question.
But in an effort to protect individual liberty, how are you doing that by FORCING someone to serve someone a sandwich if he/she doesn't want to?
You're interested in property rights, I think. You keep saying "liberty," though. Which do you think is a larger affront to liberty? A person unable to buy a widget at a business engaged in interstate commerce SOLELY because of his/her race or sex; or a widget store owner being told that he cannot refuse to serve someone on the basis of race or sex?
I can guarantee that if someone put a "no blacks allowed" sign on his window, he would be out of business within a few months. I certainly wouldn't go there.
Dude. Was this the case in 1964, do you think? Or do you think that the ability for businesses and institutions to legally discriminate on the basis of race formed a de facto apartheid system? Libertarians—particularly the young ones, though the Drs Paul have no excuse—can be so stinking glib about the Civil Rights Act. Grow up. Study the history of the Civil Rights movement. Acquire some empathy for your fellow humans, and be glad that your fight is only against imaginary boogeymen instead of armed racists, police dogs, or the Arkansas National Guard.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Tee hee. OK. But his past statements and associations are a matter of public record.
To act as if secessionists are some crazy non existent group of people is naive
Neo-confederate secessionists? They may or may not be crazy. Their ideas, however, are contemptible and should be disgusting to anyone, PARTICULARLY someone who styles his or herself a libertarian.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
So in other words, if you own a factory that is upstream from everyone else, you can dump whatever you want in the water because the Constitution says no one can stop you.
PS--Don't use Rick Perry as an example of anything that remotely makes sense.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I can't believe that anyone who has ever thoroughly read or studied the constitution would describe it as "very simple." Elegant, yes; but it is not "simple."
If you look at the actually case law here, for example: Heart of Atlanta vs. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung, this is a power granted under the Commerce Clause, in combination with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which read:
- [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
- The Congress shall have Power - 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.
i.e., Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and make laws that will allow them to act upon this power. The supreme court determined if Congress has a rationally reason to think racial discrimination hinders interstate commerce, then it falls within the powers allotted to them. Here is the money shot from the Supreme court opinion in Heart of Atlanta:
'The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579.' 312 U.S. at 118, 61 S.Ct. at 459.
Thus the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce.
This is what amuses me: The Civil Rights Act exists not only to protect minority groups, but it also is designed to protect the market; so we end up with free market libertarians actively campaign to hurt the marketplace.
Anyway, sturg, I'd be interested if you can articulate why you think these clauses do not give Congress this kind of power. The case law is very old at this point (Katzenbach cites John Marshall for goodness sake), so you'd have to have a pretty compelling argument. And no, "it does explicitly say that," isn't a good argument. That's the whole point of the Necessary and Proper clause.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
sturg33
I
Sorry - have been in Canada. Will respond when I have more time. Thanks for your patience on this message board
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
The folks who live downstream do have the right to sue. And as sturg said States have the right to make their own laws. And of course States can sue other States. So no, a factory couldn't do that without possible repercussions even if the federal government were out of the picture outside of the judicial branch of course.
You don't really expect a knowledgeable answer, do you?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
OK, so it gets decided in federal court. So, what standard gets used in court?
Which, curiously enough, was kind of the point of the commerce clause. To ensure efficient trade by avoiding conflicts between the states.
sturg33
I
I forgot the board got a new liberal!
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Yeah... The point is always very well intended. But unfortunately I think this clause has been abused at times most recently with Obamacare (or at least they tried). And that again is the libertarian argument. It's better to not have it at all then for it to be abused by the federal government, which libertarians feel is inevitable.
Are you ok with some or potentially a lot of federal abuse if it makes trade more efficient? Better hope we have good judges in the high court.
Just to clarify. I'm not against the commerce clause, but I do believe at times it has been interpreted too broadly.
sturg33
I
I can't believe that anyone who has ever thoroughly read or studied the constitution would describe it as "very simple." Elegant, yes; but it is not "simple."
I think from a libertarian perspective, it's especially simple. We look at it in a way in which "what does the federal government have the authority to do?" and i believe the answer is usually very simple. I.E., if it's not explicitly authorized, then simple, No.
Anyway, sturg, I'd be interested if you can articulate why you think these clauses do not give Congress this kind of power. The case law is very old at this point (Katzenbach cites John Marshall for goodness sake), so you'd have to have a pretty compelling argument. And no, "it does explicitly say that," isn't a good argument. That's the whole point of the Necessary and Proper clause.
The problem with the court's interpretation of the Commerce clause rests in that it basically ignores every other part of the constitution which contradicts their meaning of what the founders meant in the commerce clause.
Prior to the 1930s, the Supreme Court had regarded the ‘Commerce Clause’ to read what it’s authors intended: that only Congress should have the power to set regulations on trade between the various states, a clause inserted into the Constitution to prevent trade wars from erupting between states. For example, North Carolina can not place import tariffs on goods manufactured in Virginia. California may not forbid its citizens from traveling to or conducting business with Arizona.
A little history:
As is happening in the present day, FDR and a Democrat controlled Congress used an economic crisis as justification to pass legislation granting massive new powers to the federal government. Most of these were struck down by the Supreme Court, since they had no justification under the Constitution, which reserves all powers not specifically granted to the government to the states or the people.
In response, FDR threatened to increase the size of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen Justices, meaning he would immediately be able to appoint the six new Justices himself, who would then approve his ‘New Deal’ programs. In response to this threat, Justice Owen Roberts had a sudden change of mind, and from then on the Supreme Court approved FDR’s proposals, eventually culminating in essentially granting the federal government unlimited power in Wickard v. Filburn - which didn't allow farmers to grow wheat to feed their chicken under the "interstate commerce" clause.
This state of affairs existed until almost the turn of the century: for six decades after the Supreme Court began using the ‘Commerce Clause’ to excuse FDR’s power grab on behalf of the federal government, the Supreme Court found absolutely nothing that was not ‘justified by the Commerce Clause.’ No limits whatsoever. Katzenbach v McClung is one of many extensions of nearly unlimited power to the federal government.
Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Court decision that approved it, stands as a great example of the ‘federal government can do anything it wants’ concept. The admissions policy of an out-of-the-way restaurant in Alabama does not have much to do with maintaining the smooth flow of ‘interstate commerce.’
As I'm sure you know, the constitutionality of the law has nothing to with race. But that is how to get the emotionally charged argument flowing... In actuality, the entire Constitutional justification of the law is that it makes it easier for “interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating.” Simply put, the justification Congress had to pass Title II of the ‘1964 Civil Rights Act’ was that mandating such regulations on restaurants increased the likelihood that blacks would engage in interstate travel. With this reasoning, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing other such laws, for example mandating that all restaurants offer a full vegan menu in order to ‘promote interstate travel’ for vegans. Congress could pass laws demanding that all restaurants offer a full Halal meal in order to promote interstate travel by Muslims. Congress could pass laws demanding that all restaurants offer a full range of diet drinks and low calorie meals in order to facilitate interstate travel by overweight people.
Basically, if you take the race relations out of the equation, and in the McClung case, that is exactly what the Supreme Court had to do, then you're left with a ridiculous justification for federal authority under the guise of the 'Commerce Clause'