Louisiana Bans 2 Banks over Second Amendment stance

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by emilynghiem, Aug 17, 2018.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,699
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,128
    Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
    Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

    the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
    I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

    It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

    But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
    The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

    This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

    There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. frigidweirdo
    Offline

    frigidweirdo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    30,675
    Thanks Received:
    3,063
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,360
    This really is third world corruption.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Ringel05
    Offline

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    50,474
    Thanks Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    MIB West
    Ratings:
    +28,162
    Here's what I found, pretty sure this will end up in federal court.

    The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce. Second, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress and the states concurrent power to regulate commerce. Under this view, state regulation of commerce is invalid only when it is preempted by federal law. Third, it has been suggested that the Clause assumes that Congress and the states each have their own mutually exclusive zones of regulatory power. Under this interpretation, it becomes the job of the courts to determine whether one sovereign has invaded the exclusive regulatory zone of the other. Finally, it has been suggested that the Clause by its own force divests states of the power to regulate commerce in certain ways, but the states and Congress retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in many other ways. This fourth interpretation, a complicated hybrid of two others, turns out to be the approach taken by the Court in its decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause.

    Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    34,713
    Thanks Received:
    816
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +4,804
    Banks can actually afford to hire attorneys.

    There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would say so in the first clause.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    46,988
    Thanks Received:
    10,064
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,513
    "I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,” Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. “As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously." ibid

    Obviously Schroder doesn’t take the Second Amendment ‘seriously’ at all, given his ignorance of the law and how the Amendment protects the rights it enshrines.

    Only government has the capacity to potentially violate citizens’ rights, not private entities such as banks.

    The Second Amendment places restrictions only on government regulatory policies, the authority to do so does not extend to private entities; one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  6. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    46,988
    Thanks Received:
    10,064
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,513
    And third world ignorance.
     
  7. frigidweirdo
    Offline

    frigidweirdo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    30,675
    Thanks Received:
    3,063
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,360
    Not only that, they even hold it as a bad of honor that they'd as ignorant as people who live in mud huts, no electricity and no schooling.
     
  8. evenflow1969
    Offline

    evenflow1969 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,569
    Thanks Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,119
    What exactly is their stance on guns?
     
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    96,970
    Thanks Received:
    17,688
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +60,309
    But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,414
    Thanks Received:
    713
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Location:
    Worldwide
    Ratings:
    +2,703
    I'm more pissed off about the debt bond auction.

    You know who the banks are going to sell the bond to after they buy it, right?
     

Share This Page