The basis is Capitalism is regulated here, Now you know.
It's regulated in violation of the Constitution.
Utter B.S. The regulation of economic activity is clearly acknowledged in the Constitution.
Wow.
It's embarrassing that we have such ill informed people in our nation. Where was that person when they were supposed to be learning the constitution with the rest of US History? Yet they're the same people who wrap themselves in the flag and declare that they love our nation and what we stand for.
But then people like that only believe and follow the parts of our constitution they like, such as the second amendment.
They have no idea what the commerce clause is. I know I've posted it several times but I'll do it again. Some people need things repeated before it actually sinks in. It's one simple and very intelligent sentence in the constitution. The founders of America knew that unregulated capitalism only leads to monopolies and oligarchies.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[3]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Hey genius, it would help to have the legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause in hand before lecturing others on Constitutional law.
"
The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade. "
102RP6
Now please, have a seat.
It would help if you understood that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, before lecturing others on the meaning of the Commerce Clause with regard to public accommodations:
'Held:
1. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation serving interstate travelers.
Civil Right Cases,109 U.S. 3, distinguished. Pp. 249-262.
(a) The interstate movement of persons is "commerce" which concerns more than one State. Pp. 255-256.
(b) The protection of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether or not the transportation of persons between States is "commercial." P. 256.
(c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress was also legislating against what it considered to be moral wrongs. P. 257.
(d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 258.
(2) The prohibition in Title II of racial discrimination in public accommodations affecting commerce does not violate the Fifth
[p242]Amendment as being a deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. Pp. 258-261.
(3) Such prohibition does not violate he Thirteenth Amendment as being "involuntary servitude." P. 261.'
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States LII Legal Information Institute
