State's Rights

[jillian]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

In the case of the governments contortionist bending of the commerce clause, their application wasn't State v. Citizen. It was Citizen v. Citizen. A bar owner in say, Alabama...that didn't want to serve black folks.

The State has no direct role in that interaction unless they decide they do. And the feds no jurisdiction without the bizarro 'a nail crosses the state border' nonsense.

a bar owner not wanting to serve black folks is a discrimination issue.... they used public accommodation and licensing as a means to exert control, rightfully. how else would you have done it and not used the commerce clause?

Americans are FREE People. Businesses right to refuse to serve whomever should be respected. I would choose to boycott such enterprises and let them go bankrupt. But I would never support using the federal or state power to infring upon their right to freely associate or pursue whatever they think is happiness.

.

no. business doesn't have the right to refuse public accommodation.

and your "freedom" ends at the tip of my nose. (thankfully).

I think it's sad that you think we should go back to the world full of low-lives putting signs in their windows saying "no blacks no jews no dogs"

pathetic

 

[Skylar]

The Feds absolutely have the authority to step in and protect rights of individuals by declaring a given state statute is unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment ? talks about rebellion and slavery. It was written in1868.

It talks about more than rebellion and slavery. It also talks about the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, equal protection under the law, due process of law and their relationship to the State.

And yup, it was written in 1868. Though the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights' application to the States by the USSC didn't actually begin until about 1900.

 

[Skylar]

Americans are FREE People. Businesses right to refuse to serve whomever should be respected. I would choose to boycott such enterprises and let them go bankrupt. But I would never support using the federal or state power to infring upon their right to freely associate or pursue whatever they think is happiness.

Depends on the State. Its fully within the State's authority to regulate citizen v. citizen commerce. The Feds pushed their way in on some pretty fucked up legal reasoning, in my opinion.

 

[Contumacious]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

In the case of the governments contortionist bending of the commerce clause, their application wasn't State v. Citizen. It was Citizen v. Citizen. A bar owner in say, Alabama...that didn't want to serve black folks.

The State has no direct role in that interaction unless they decide they do. And the feds no jurisdiction without the bizarro 'a nail crosses the state border' nonsense.

a bar owner not wanting to serve black folks is a discrimination issue.... they used public accommodation and licensing as a means to exert control, rightfully. how else would you have done it and not used the commerce clause?

Americans are FREE People. Businesses right to refuse to serve whomever should be respected. I would choose to boycott such enterprises and let them go bankrupt. But I would never support using the federal or state power to infring upon their right to freely associate or pursue whatever they think is happiness.

.

no. business doesn't have the right to refuse public accommodation.

and your "freedom" ends at the tip of my nose. (thankfully).

I think it's sad that you think we should go back to the world full of low-lives putting signs in their windows saying "no blacks no jews no dogs"

pathetic

You prefer the governments which fly these flags instead?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Feds absolutely have the authority to step in and protect rights of individuals by declaring a given state statute is unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment ? talks about rebellion and slavery. It was written in1868.

Does the 14th Amendment have an expiration date?

 

[Skylar]

no. business doesn't have the right to refuse public accommodation.

That's federal law. I'm talking about the application of federal law and the nonsense legal justifications of it.

and your "freedom" ends at the tip of my nose. (thankfully).

But refusing you services does nothing to your nose. Nothing is being done to you. Literally. The other party is refusing to do anything with you.

For the vast majority of our nation's history, rights are freedom from government obstruction. You want to speak? They can't stop you. You want to assemble? They can't stop you. You want to seek redress? They can't stop you. Or restrictions on what the government can do. Do they want to do a search or seizure? Such searches need to be reasonable, based on probable cause.

The conception of 'rights' you're describing grants you the authority to make someone do something they don't want to do.

And that's not a 'right'. That's an obligation.That's the exercise of power over them. Not freedom from them.

I think it's sad that you think we should go back to the world full of low-lives putting signs in their windows saying "no blacks no jews no dogs"

Pathetic, yes. And I fully agree with you at horrid nature of citizen v. citizen discrimination. And fully support my state's laws preventing them.

However, the issue is 'does the Federal Government have unlimited INTRAstate commerce jursidiction based on the INTERstate commerce clause'. And I would argue that there's no reasonable or rational interpretation of the constitution that would lead one to that conclusion. I'd argue that the feds overstepped their bounds with the hapless 'one nail that crosses the border' standard, as it grants the federal government unlimited intrastate commerce authority. Which the founders never granted them nor intended them to have.

Its an ends vs. the means issue. Where I agree with the federal govenrment's ends. I argue that their means overstepped their constitutional authority.

 

[HenryBHough]

Lewis Carroll wrote "Down The Rabbit Hole".

Jimmy Carter wrote "Down the Rat Hole"

B. Hussein Obama wrote the sequel

Joe Biden, if he saw a buck in it, would plgiarize them all.

 

[jillian]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. and, ultimately, that's what the court did in each of the circumstances discussed. if our citizens aren't protected from errant state governments then is there really a purpose to the constitution at all? I doubt, after seeing things like jim crow and segregation that anyone really believes the states adequately protect the rights of individuals. I think we can also agree that we are long past the articles of confederation and it was never intended that the states should be free-floating entities. I think we can also agree that the same people who scream about the federal government's impositions have no problem imposing themselves and their religious views and their bigotry on others (hence them complaining about the federal government)

 

[jillian]

Lewis Carroll wrote "Down The Rabbit Hole".

Jimmy Carter wrote "Down the Rat Hole"

B. Hussein Obama wrote the sequel

Joe Biden, if he saw a buck in it, would plgiarize them all.

what a pity there is no button with an appropriate response to your nonsense.

 

[HenryBHough]

Lewis Carroll wrote "Down The Rabbit Hole".

Jimmy Carter wrote "Down the Rat Hole"

B. Hussein Obama wrote the sequel

Joe Biden, if he saw a buck in it, would plgiarize them all.

what a pity there is no button with an appropriate response to your nonsense.

You mean playing with your belly-button didn't help?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. and, ultimately, that's what the court did in each of the circumstances discussed. if our citizens aren't protected from errant state governments then is there really a purpose to the constitution at all? I doubt, after seeing things like jim crow and segregation that anyone really believes the states adequately protect the rights of individuals. I think we can also agree that we are long past the articles of confederation and it was never intended that the states should be free-floating entities. I think we can also agree that the same people who scream about the federal government's impositions have no problem imposing themselves and their religious views and their bigotry on others (hence them complaining about the federal government)

WOW - SPOT ON!

 

[jillian]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. and, ultimately, that's what the court did in each of the circumstances discussed. if our citizens aren't protected from errant state governments then is there really a purpose to the constitution at all? I doubt, after seeing things like jim crow and segregation that anyone really believes the states adequately protect the rights of individuals. I think we can also agree that we are long past the articles of confederation and it was never intended that the states should be free-floating entities. I think we can also agree that the same people who scream about the federal government's impositions have no problem imposing themselves and their religious views and their bigotry on others (hence them complaining about the federal government)

WOW - SPOT ON!

thanks.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. and, ultimately, that's what the court did in each of the circumstances discussed. if our citizens aren't protected from errant state governments then is there really a purpose to the constitution at all? I doubt, after seeing things like jim crow and segregation that anyone really believes the states adequately protect the rights of individuals. I think we can also agree that we are long past the articles of confederation and it was never intended that the states should be free-floating entities. I think we can also agree that the same people who scream about the federal government's impositions have no problem imposing themselves and their religious views and their bigotry on others (hence them complaining about the federal government)

WOW - SPOT ON!

thanks.

Great post. I wish I could mix respect and disagreement as well. I just get mad way too easy. Your post reminded me again of just how powerful respectful disagreement can be. (especially when it is peppered with really good points like this.) I am inspired to try harder.

 

[jillian]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. and, ultimately, that's what the court did in each of the circumstances discussed. if our citizens aren't protected from errant state governments then is there really a purpose to the constitution at all? I doubt, after seeing things like jim crow and segregation that anyone really believes the states adequately protect the rights of individuals. I think we can also agree that we are long past the articles of confederation and it was never intended that the states should be free-floating entities. I think we can also agree that the same people who scream about the federal government's impositions have no problem imposing themselves and their religious views and their bigotry on others (hence them complaining about the federal government)

WOW - SPOT ON!

thanks.

Great post. I wish I could mix respect and disagreement as well. I just get mad way too easy. Your post reminded me again of just how powerful respectful disagreement can be. (especially when it is peppered with really good points like this.) I am inspired to try harder.

I am only good at doing that when the person I'm responding to is respectful and clearly intelligent. when faced with buffoons, i'm afraid it's very easy to respond in kind.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority.

That's an end's justifies the means argument. And there's never been a slope so slippery. Its the justification used for say, interning the Japanese. Or castrating the mentally ill.

And the Federal government excercising a power they were clearly never meant to have is deeply concerning. Regardless of the outcome.

If the 'interstate commerce' clause can be used to grant the Federal government regulatory authority over all intrastate commerce, then what power does the federal government NOT have? As 'inter' and 'intra' are clearly opposites. But used interchangeably in terms of federal jurisdiction.

 

[AtticusF]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

States rights goes beyond the treatment of minorities to the treatment of all people. They seek to use their powers as a state to abuse gays, women, workers, foreigners .......that is why we need a strong federal government

 

[Contumacious]

Skylar, while I appreciate your analysis, I'd say if the high court is going to err, it should err in favor of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority.

That's an end's justifies the means argument. And there's never been a slope so slippery. Its the justification used for say, interning the Japanese. Or castrating the mentally ill.

And the Federal government excercising a power they were clearly never meant to have is deeply concerning. Regardless of the outcome.

If the 'interstate commerce' clause can be used to grant the Federal government regulatory authority over all intrastate commerce, then what power does the federal government NOT have? As 'inter' and 'intra' are clearly opposites. But used interchangeably in terms of federal jurisdiction.

Exactly.

They claim that a red neck juke joint does not have a right to refuse to serve blacks. But they forget that the US Government does not have the authority to compel the juke joint to accept blacks or other minorities.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Oh.....oh....me first

I support the federal government putting down that child molesting pedophile who set fire to his own people