- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Whether they are or not has nothing to do with it.
Read up on the civil rights movement and the 14 th amendment. The was you dislike we're born there, and on the back at least in part on that amendment.
Again, this is the law of the land, he supreme law. The courts have ruled and separate but unequal didn't hold up.
You asked if I've read it. I have. And the history surrounding it. The reason you guys come up wrong is because you read only sections and largely out of historical context. You forget the role of precedence. You ignore how these came about. You try to deal with it in a vacuum, as if words are not connected to other words or ideas with intentions.
The discrimination they speak of would be what you support. Letting business discriminate. We through a period if allowing that and it went badly. Eventually, it had to be re-thought and the original intent revisited. And at the end if the day, this is where we are, and better for it.
Because its interstate trade and is not a power granted to the states.Is there ever a supreme court ruling that makes sense? What does business discrimination practices have to do with keeping trade regular?
You're the ones over exaggerating. But I'll accept your surrender.
You asked if I've read it. I have. And the history surrounding it. The reason you guys come up wrong is because you read only sections and largely out of historical context. You forget the role of precedence. You ignore how these came about. You try to deal with it in a vacuum, as if words are not connected to other words or ideas with intentions.
The discrimination they speak of would be what you support. Letting business discriminate. We through a period if allowing that and it went badly. Eventually, it had to be re-thought and the original intent revisited. And at the end if the day, this is where we are, and better for it.
Because its interstate trade and is not a power granted to the states.
The decision:
Katzenbach v. McClung
Because its interstate trade and is not a power granted to the states.
The decision:
Katzenbach v. McClung
what are we discussing .......the violation of constitutional law.
we know what the court says, but we also know what the constitution says.......its written clearly, that a state, meaning its government cannot discriminate..............where does the constitution state there is a limit on the people or a business?.....no where.
it does not apply, becuase as i stated before the constitution is not written to restrain the people or business at all.......Constitutions are written for governments only... to restrain them............so how can the 14th amendment apply to individuals?
I think it has everything to do with it. :shrug:
What does the fourteenth amendment have to do with private institutions?
How does that answer his post in any sort of way?
If you provide your definition of aggression we can continue. Otherwise, I know you're just trolling.
There is no "role of precedence" except in to serve the Supreme Court's convenience in argument, and in corruption of the Constitution, just as is true of the role of "standing".
The only obligation that the Court has in its decisions is to the Constitution itself, which is a static document whose terms and understanding were known. The only legitimate recognition of those terms is original intent, otherwise other predisposed "interpretations" are ascribing that document with things never indicated, and which the people never agreed upon, and never ratified.
Don't you understand I have no investment in the word aggression. It simply doesn't apply here.
Okay, so you know what is NOT aggression, but you can't tell us what IS aggression.
Not the first time you've been wrong. :shrug:
You're claim was wrong.
I know he word is plain ass exaggeration. To give it any credence is to be part if the problem. I won't do that. Tone it down and speak about the issue in realistic terms, and we can continue.
Well, sadly, we can't continue to debate if you won't agree to define your terms.
It has to with how the laws came about. Doesn't anyone read?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?