Is This An Example Of States Rights?

[The Rabbi]

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.

Thats because you can't defend your position.

 

[Darkwind]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

So, you don't care about the illicit taking of private property.

You just wanted a gotcha moment.

Speaks volumes.

 

[Mustang]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

So, you don't care about the illicit taking of private property.

You just wanted a gotcha moment.

Speaks volumes.

If I didn't care about the unlawful seizure of individuals' private property, I wouldn't have posted the story in the first place. I just saw that a larger issue was also at stake.

 

[Mustang]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.

Thats because you can't defend your position.

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

 

[The Rabbi]

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.

Thats because you can't defend your position.

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

 

[Mustang]

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.

Thats because you can't defend your position.

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

Are you obtuse, or merely woefully ignorant? Where does it say anything about restaurants at all in the constitution?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Case closed.

Cops cannot take anything away from you, unless they have a warrant from a judge that describes what to take. Or unless a legal trial or hearing has been held and has ruled that you will give up such-and-such.

The so-called "asset forfeiture" events you talked about, flatly violate the Constitution. Doesn't matter if somebody "thinks they will do some good". They are illegal, period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.

Thats because you can't defend your position.

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

Are you obtuse, or merely woefully ignorant? Where does it say anything about restaurants at all in the constitution?

Of course it doesnt. WHich is precisely my point. So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve. It is something left to the states, i.e. states' rights.
It is different from seizures, which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and where the federal gov't does have a role.
Thanks. You have proven your original post was wrong, that you have no idea what you're talking about,and that you suffer from low intelligence and low information.
Bye!

 

[Mustang]

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.

Thats because you can't defend your position.

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

Are you obtuse, or merely woefully ignorant? Where does it say anything about restaurants at all in the constitution?

Of course it doesnt. WHich is precisely my point. So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve. It is something left to the states, i.e. states' rights.
It is different from seizures, which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and where the federal gov't does have a role.
Thanks. You have proven your original post was wrong, that you have no idea what you're talking about,and that you suffer from low intelligence and low information.
Bye!

The gov't has the duty and the responsibility to protect the rights of ALL its citizens, period. That includes you too, by the way. Since restaurants are public accommodations which are not permitted to operate unless they're licensed by the state to serve food and/or alcohol, they cannot discriminate against citizens if they want to maintain their public accommodation status.

Now, IF they want to discriminate in terms of who they will or won't serve, they can certainly choose to be a private club which can restrict it's membership in several ways.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats because you can't defend your position.

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

Are you obtuse, or merely woefully ignorant? Where does it say anything about restaurants at all in the constitution?

Of course it doesnt. WHich is precisely my point. So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve. It is something left to the states, i.e. states' rights.
It is different from seizures, which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and where the federal gov't does have a role.
Thanks. You have proven your original post was wrong, that you have no idea what you're talking about,and that you suffer from low intelligence and low information.
Bye!

The gov't has the duty and the responsibility to protect the rights of ALL its citizens, period. That includes you too, by the way. Since restaurants are public accommodations which are not permitted to operate unless they're licensed by the state to serve food and/or alcohol, they cannot discriminate against citizens if they want to maintain their public accommodation status.

Now, IF they want to discriminate in terms of who they will or won't serve, they can certainly choose to be a private club which can restrict it's membership in several ways.

So your argument is that the gov't has the duty to protect citizens and since restaurants are licensed by the state then the federal government can enforce actions against the citizens based on the state license. OR something like that?
And you wonder why you get pwned on every argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

Plase quote the language of the 14th amendment that says no person may be discriminated against due to color creed etc.

 

[Mustang]

I just did. And it wasn't difficult at all since your arguments are so weak.

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

Are you obtuse, or merely woefully ignorant? Where does it say anything about restaurants at all in the constitution?

Of course it doesnt. WHich is precisely my point. So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve. It is something left to the states, i.e. states' rights.
It is different from seizures, which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and where the federal gov't does have a role.
Thanks. You have proven your original post was wrong, that you have no idea what you're talking about,and that you suffer from low intelligence and low information.
Bye!

The gov't has the duty and the responsibility to protect the rights of ALL its citizens, period. That includes you too, by the way. Since restaurants are public accommodations which are not permitted to operate unless they're licensed by the state to serve food and/or alcohol, they cannot discriminate against citizens if they want to maintain their public accommodation status.

Now, IF they want to discriminate in terms of who they will or won't serve, they can certainly choose to be a private club which can restrict it's membership in several ways.

So your argument is that the gov't has the duty to protect citizens and since restaurants are licensed by the state then the federal government can enforce actions against the citizens based on the state license. OR something like that?
And you wonder why you get pwned on every argument.

You get your ass handed to you every time because you seem to take a literalistic view that the Constitution can't be interpreted to include any extension of rights that aren't specifically spelled out, especially when it's not to your liking. You would be WRONG since many of the rights within the US Constitution often come into conflict with one another especially when the rights of one person come into conflict with the differing rights of others.

But the 14th Amendment is a good place to start. Thankfully, Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact legislation to enforce the intent of the Amendment. No doubt you'll want to start a movement to repeal it.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Mustang]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

Plase quote the language of the 14th amendment that says no person may be discriminated against due to color creed etc.

Again, see Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (as I previously stated)!

 

[bripat9643]

You did? Where does it say anything about a right to be served in a restaurant in the COnstitution? Quote the actual language.

Are you obtuse, or merely woefully ignorant? Where does it say anything about restaurants at all in the constitution?

Of course it doesnt. WHich is precisely my point. So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve. It is something left to the states, i.e. states' rights.
It is different from seizures, which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and where the federal gov't does have a role.
Thanks. You have proven your original post was wrong, that you have no idea what you're talking about,and that you suffer from low intelligence and low information.
Bye!

The gov't has the duty and the responsibility to protect the rights of ALL its citizens, period. That includes you too, by the way. Since restaurants are public accommodations which are not permitted to operate unless they're licensed by the state to serve food and/or alcohol, they cannot discriminate against citizens if they want to maintain their public accommodation status.

Now, IF they want to discriminate in terms of who they will or won't serve, they can certainly choose to be a private club which can restrict it's membership in several ways.

So your argument is that the gov't has the duty to protect citizens and since restaurants are licensed by the state then the federal government can enforce actions against the citizens based on the state license. OR something like that?
And you wonder why you get pwned on every argument.

You get your ass handed to you every time because you seem to take a literalistic view that the Constitution can't be interpreted to include any extension of rights that aren't specifically spelled out, especially when it's not to your liking. You would be WRONG since many of the rights within the US Constitution often come into conflict with one another especially when the rights of one person come into conflict with the differing rights of others.

But the 14th Amendment is a good place to start. Thankfully, Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact legislation to enforce the intent of the Amendment. No doubt you'll want to start a movement to repeal it.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That Amendment doesn't give Congress the authority to prevent private businesses from discriminating. It only prevents the government from discriminating. Congress knew that so it illegitimately used the commerce clause to justify its public accommodation law.

 

[bripat9643]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

Nope. The Constitution bars the government from discriminating, not privately owned businesses.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

Plase quote the language of the 14th amendment that says no person may be discriminated against due to color creed etc.

Again, see Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (as I previously stated)!

Which doesnt say anything about restaurants, or black people or race or color or anything like that.
See you get your ass handed to you because you quote things you dont understand. You do that because you're dumb. And ignorant.

 

[Mustang]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

Plase quote the language of the 14th amendment that says no person may be discriminated against due to color creed etc.

Again, see Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (as I previously stated)!

Which doesnt say anything about restaurants, or black people or race or color or anything like that.
See you get your ass handed to you because you quote things you dont understand. You do that because you're dumb. And ignorant.

Yeah, the Constitution doesn't mention cars either. Does that mean car registrations and drivers licenses are unconstitutional too?

You're just a silly boy.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the federal government has no role in telling restaurants whom they must serve.

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

Plase quote the language of the 14th amendment that says no person may be discriminated against due to color creed etc.

Again, see Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (as I previously stated)!

Which doesnt say anything about restaurants, or black people or race or color or anything like that.
See you get your ass handed to you because you quote things you dont understand. You do that because you're dumb. And ignorant.

Yeah, the Constitution doesn't mention cars either. Does that mean car registrations and drivers licenses are unconstitutional too?

You're just a silly boy.

Sorry, find where the Constitution mentions cars so the federal government can control registrations and licenses. I'll wait.
Stupid, stupid, man.

 

[Mustang]

The Constitution (14th amendment) says that no person my be discriminated against due to color, race etc.

If you throw a black guy out of your restaurant because you don't like black guys, you are violating the Constitution, and the Fed can prosecute you for it.

If you throw out a black guy because he stole the silverware, you are not violating the Constitution, and the Fed govt has no say. But his lawyer will pretend you did it because you didn't like black guys, and will sue you under the 14th amendment in Federal court anyway.

Plase quote the language of the 14th amendment that says no person may be discriminated against due to color creed etc.

Again, see Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (as I previously stated)!

Which doesnt say anything about restaurants, or black people or race or color or anything like that.
See you get your ass handed to you because you quote things you dont understand. You do that because you're dumb. And ignorant.

Yeah, the Constitution doesn't mention cars either. Does that mean car registrations and drivers licenses are unconstitutional too?

You're just a silly boy.

Sorry, find where the Constitution mentions cars so the federal government can control registrations and licenses. I'll wait.
Stupid, stupid, man.

It doesn't have to mention cars anymore than it had to specifically mention railroads, or steam ships, or even wagons being pulled by a team or horses for that matter since interstate commerce may be involved and the fact that cars can travel across state lines which, of course, is within the purview of federal control. Or haven't you heard of the Commerce Department and/or the Department of Transportation, the latter of which takes it's responsibility seriously when it comes to the interstate transport of goods up to and including hazardous materials. And you're heard of the Interstate road system, haven't you?

Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself? You look like a damn fool.