Equality Act Introduced in Congress

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

That's the best that you can do? You aren't very impressive.

I have told you many of times, i dont care what the SC says. They have been wrong many of times.
Maybe the difference between you and i is that i can read basic english. And i dont let other people guide my way.
Try being an individual some day. Its great.

Thank you for admitting to everyone that you are so delusional that you think by not paying attention to the Supreme Court....you render their decisions something other than established law.

Lol. What im saying is, those activists opinions are merely opinions to me. It is technically law but that doesnt mea it is unconstitutional

It's constitutional until the court revisits it and says otherwise. Not when you say otherwise

 

[TNHarley]

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

That's the best that you can do? You aren't very impressive.

I have told you many of times, i dont care what the SC says. They have been wrong many of times.
Maybe the difference between you and i is that i can read basic english. And i dont let other people guide my way.
Try being an individual some day. Its great.

Thank you for admitting to everyone that you are so delusional that you think by not paying attention to the Supreme Court....you render their decisions something other than established law.

Lol. What im saying is, those activists opinions are merely opinions to me. It is technically law but that doesnt mea it is unconstitutional

It's constitutional until the court revisits it and says otherwise. Not when you say otherwise

If you read it you would understand

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's constitutional until the court revisits it and says otherwise. Not when you say otherwise

The Constitution says what it says. When a court rules that it says something contrary to what is actually written therein, then this is an act of blatant corruption on the part of that court, and ought to be considered to have no legal standing whatsoever.

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” — Thomas Jefferson​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's constitutional until the court revisits it and says otherwise. Not when you say otherwise

The Constitution says what it says. When a court rules that it says something contrary to what is actually written therein, then this is an act of blatant corruption on the part of that court, and ought to be considered to have no legal standing whatsoever.

“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” — Thomas Jefferson​

So you're opposed to the civil rights act of 1964.? You think that it's unconstitutional? Good to know

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution says what it says. When a court rules that it says something contrary to what is actually written therein, then this is an act of blatant corruption on the part of that court, and ought to be considered to have no legal standing whatsoever.

So you're opposed to the civil rights act of 1964.? You think that it's unconstitutional? Good to know

The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the federal government only has that power that is delegated to it in the Constitution, all other rights and powers being reserved to the states or to the people. Show me where, in the Constitution, there is any language which delegates to the federal government the power to dictate to private businesses with whom they may or must do business.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Constitution says what it says. When a court rules that it says something contrary to what is actually written therein, then this is an act of blatant corruption on the part of that court, and ought to be considered to have no legal standing whatsoever.

So you're opposed to the civil rights act of 1964.? You think that it's unconstitutional? Good to know

The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the federal government only has that power that is delegated to it in the Constitution, all other rights and powers being reserved to the states or to the people. Show me where, in the Constitution, there is any language which delegates to the federal government the power to dictate to private businesses with whom they may or must do business.

You have a piss poor understanding of constitutional law. Show me where the tenth amendment absolves the states from compliance with the bill of rights or the 14th amendment. The powers that are reserved for the states and the people are not absolute. Thank you again for admitting that you believe that the states should have free reign to violate individual civil rights and allow other to do so as well. The nation that you envision is a cruel and dystopian one indeed,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have a piss poor understanding of constitutional law. Show me where the tenth amendment absolves the states from compliance with the bill of rights or the 14th amendment. The powers that are reserved for the states and the people are not absolute. Thank you again for admitting that you believe that the states should have free reign to violate individual civil rights and allow other to do so as well.

Nothing in that response addresses, nor even rationally reflects, what it is that I said.

The nation that you envision is a cruel and dystopian one indeed,

Says the author of this bizarre fantasy, involving alien mind control drugs.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Relevant reading...

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation

Excellent read