• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal funding; first amendment rights?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If an entity receives federal funding, they thereby choose to forfeit a lot of their rights. For example, a government entity waives (meaning, it chooses to not use it) their sovereign immunity if they are sued in federal court for discrimination, so long as they receive federal funding (such as a public university receiving FAFSA money), according to 42 USC 2000d-7.

So, if an entity like that receives federal funding, should they also give a limited amount of first amendment rights to their beneficiaries?

Now, you'll probably think "So, a cashier at an affirmative action employer cusses out a customer; should he still get to keep his job cuz of first amendment rights?" I've accommodated for things like that by allowing any infringements to be held to intermediate scrutiny, as opposed to the strict scrutiny that government censorship is held to.

Here is the bill that I've created. Any thoughts?

Section 1: Definitions.
For the purposes of this statute,
---(a) “Federal funding” means any financial assistance given to an entity for the purpose of supporting or advancing their business, including, but not limited to...
------(1) Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, Work Study Funds, or any other form of federal student financial aid.
------(2) Affirmative Action in employment.
------(3) The Housing Choice Voucher Program
------(4) Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
---(b) “recipient of federal funding” means any business entity that receives federal funding for whatever purpose, including, but not limited to...
---(1) Colleges that participating in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid Program in order to assist students in paying tuition.
------(2) Any employer that participates in affirmative action policies.
------(3) Any landlord or homeowner that participates in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
------(4) Any grocery store or other store that accepts benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
---(c) “Government” means
------(1) any state, local, or federal government entity, or
------(2) any entity that is owned by at least a majority by any of the above.
---(d) “Beneficiary” means any entity (business or individual) that receives the benefits of any federal funding, including, but not limited to
------(1) Students at colleges that participates in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid Program.
------(2) Any employee of an employer that participates in affirmative action.
------(3) Any tenant or leaser of real estate that receives benefits in accordance with the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
------(4) Any customer of a store who is using, or intending to use, benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.

Section 2: General first amendment rights in private sector.
---(a) With the exceptions outlined below, any privately-owned recipient of federal funding for whatever purpose must give the beneficiaries shall give the beneficiaries of said funding the same rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution that the government is required to provide.
---(b) A private entity may still infringe on first amendment rights if their rule could pass intermediate scrutiny, had that rule been passed by a government within the United States.
---(c) Nothing in this section shall give governments the right to have any infringement of first amendment rights held to intermediate scrutiny, if such violations would otherwise be held to strict scrutiny. This entire section applies only to the private sector.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Can you find for me the delegation of power in the Constitution to spend money on this?
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Commerce clause.

EDIT: Here, here's an article on the Commerce Clause.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stay in school, kids!
Funny, but I don't see a delegation to spend money there. I see that the government can regulate, to put into perfect working order, commerce between foreign states, among the several states, and the Indian tribes. If a clause states it can spend money it does explicitly state that. Now to further punch holes into your legislation there is the bit about the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall pass no law." This means that any law that retricts or removes the right of assembly, free speech, the press, and religion is null and void since Congress cannot pass one. You were saying about staying in school?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Funny, but I don't see a delegation to spend money there.
Ok, fine, you want the power to spend money?

How about, the Taxing and Spending Clause?

Now to further punch holes into your legislation there is the bit about the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall pass no law." This means that any law that retricts or removes the right of assembly, free speech, the press, and religion is null and void since Congress cannot pass one. You were saying about staying in school?
Oh, I still think this is constitutional.

Virtually any right can be waived if the party waiving the right explicitly consents to it.

For example, the police can gain admissible evidence by searching your home without a warrant if you allow them to.

You can be denied a trial if you plead guilty. You can be denied a public defender if you explicitly state that you don't want one.

No one is forcing the recipients to receive the federal funding; they do that completely on their own accord. Therefore, they accept the waiver of their rights.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Patriot, that's TWICE that you got your ass handed to ya!

Wanna make it three?
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Ok, fine, you want the power to spend money?

How about, the Taxing and Spending Clause?


Oh, I still think this is constitutional.

Virtually any right can be waived if the party waiving the right explicitly consents to it.

For example, the police can gain admissible evidence by searching your home without a warrant if you allow them to.

You can be denied a trial if you plead guilty. You can be denied a public defender if you explicitly state that you don't want one.

No one is forcing the recipients to receive the federal funding; they do that completely on their own accord. Therefore, they accept the waiver of their rights.
There is no taxing and spending clause. There is a clause that says that Congress can levy taxes and spend the money on the common defense and provide the general welfare with a list of 16 things that Congress can spend money. I don't see where Congress can spend money on this. Also, James Madison had this to say about general welfare.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

James Madison's view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8. This response is from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;

“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."
Except that Congress can pass no law, so no you cannot pass this law since it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Yes, you can waive rights, but only when it is legal to do so. Beating a suspect with a telephone book to extract a confession is not legal even though a person can waive their Fifth Amendment protection against being a witness against themselves. There are plenty more examples out there.

You were saying about schooling?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is no taxing and spending clause. There is a clause that says that Congress can levy taxes and spend the money on the common defense and provide the general welfare with a list of 16 things that Congress can spend money.
Prove it.

I don't see where Congress can spend money on this.
Let me put it this way:

Because this is not a suspect class, it won't be held to strict scrutiny. Because it is not a quasi suspect class, it won't be held to intermediate scrutiny, either.

Therefore, it will only be held to rational basis review. To pass rational basis review, all the government needs to show is that it has a legitimate interest in doing something, and the challenged law is rationally (hence the name) related to that interest.

The federal government has a legitimate interest in forwarding fundamental freedoms, especially considering that we lead the free world. Encouraging private entities to give people those same first amendment rights by enticing them with federal money is rationally related to that interest.

Also, James Madison had this to say about general welfare.
And, how does James Madison's opinion have the force of law?

Particularly over two hundred years after he died.

Yes, you can waive rights, but only when it is legal to do so.
And, how is it illegal to forfeit your first amendment rights?

Beating a suspect with a telephone book to extract a confession is not legal even though a person can waive their Fifth Amendment protection against being a witness against themselves.
That waiver would be invalid because they were under duress.

There are plenty more examples out there.
Such as?

You were saying about schooling?
I stand by what I said.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Prove it.


Let me put it this way:

Because this is not a suspect class, it won't be held to strict scrutiny. Because it is not a quasi suspect class, it won't be held to intermediate scrutiny, either.

Therefore, it will only be held to rational basis review. To pass rational basis review, all the government needs to show is that it has a legitimate interest in doing something, and the challenged law is rationally (hence the name) related to that interest.

The federal government has a legitimate interest in forwarding fundamental freedoms, especially considering that we lead the free world. Encouraging private entities to give people those same first amendment rights by enticing them with federal money is rationally related to that interest.


And, how does James Madison's opinion have the force of law?

Particularly over two hundred years after he died.


And, how is it illegal to forfeit your first amendment rights?


That waiver would be invalid because they were under duress.


Such as?


I stand by what I said.
I already did prove it and James Madison has a lot to say on it since he was the one that wrote the Constitution. James Madison>you. Thus, under the strict reading of the Constitution, you cannot spend money on this. Since the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law that abridges a person's rights to assembly, press, speech, and religion your law would be unConstitutional. Your claim about the US leading the free world is false since there are more things illegal and more people imprisoned than China. That tells you something. I gave you an example of how you can be forced to waive your rights. I suggest you heed your own advice and go back to school.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I already did prove it
No, you didn't!

and James Madison has a lot to say on it since he was the one that wrote the Constitution.
You damned liar!

So, it wasn't George Washington? It was John Adams? No one helped Madison write the Constitution? It was just James Madison all by his lonesome?


Thus, under the strict reading of the Constitution, you cannot spend money on this.
Well, we don't USE the strict reading, anymore!

Since the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law that abridges a person's rights to assembly, press, speech, and religion your law would be unConstitutional.
Oh, so, I guess, defamation is constitutionally protected?

I guess death threats are constitutionally protected!

I guess putting a naked woman on the front page of a newspaper that is visible to the public is protected by freedom of press.

No right is absolute, genius.

there are more things illegal and more people imprisoned than China.
I don't suppose you could provide CITATION for that!

I gave you an example of how you can be forced to waive your rights.
My idea does not FORCE anyone to waive their rights!
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,571
Reaction score
27,832
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, you didn't!


You damned liar!

So, it wasn't George Washington? It was John Adams? No one helped Madison write the Constitution? It was just James Madison all by his lonesome?



Well, we don't USE the strict reading, anymore!


Oh, so, I guess, defamation is constitutionally protected?

I guess death threats are constitutionally protected!

I guess putting a naked woman on the front page of a newspaper that is visible to the public is protected by freedom of press.

No right is absolute, genius.


I don't suppose you could provide CITATION for that!


My idea does not FORCE anyone to waive their rights!
You are failing miserably, but carry on, by all means.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, you didn't!
I provided facts and you replied with rhetoric. Facts>rhetoric.


You damned liar!

So, it wasn't George Washington? It was John Adams? No one helped Madison write the Constitution? It was just James Madison all by his lonesome?
From the National Archives and Records Administration.

Q. Who was called the "Father of the Constitution"?
A. James Madison, of Virginia, because in point of erudition and actual contributions to the formation of the Constitution he was preeminent.
Well, we don't USE the strict reading, anymore!
Yes, that's why we're up to our eyeballs in debt. Maybe we should use a strict reading.


Oh, so, I guess, defamation is constitutionally protected?

I guess death threats are constitutionally protected!

I guess putting a naked woman on the front page of a newspaper that is visible to the public is protected by freedom of press.

No right is absolute, genius.
Hyperbole


I don't suppose you could provide CITATION for that!
# 1 United States: 2,019,234 prisoners
# 2 China: 1,549,000 prisoners
Source

My idea does not FORCE anyone to waive their rights!
Your idea violates the First Amendment's statement that Congress shall pass no law. It also violates the Constitution because the delegated power to spend money on this isn't there. Can you actually provide sources for your statements?
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,571
Reaction score
27,832
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I provided facts and you replied with rhetoric. Facts>rhetoric.




From the National Archives and Records Administration.





Yes, that's why we're up to our eyeballs in debt. Maybe we should use a strict reading.




Hyperbole




# 1 United States: 2,019,234 prisoners
# 2 China: 1,549,000 prisoners
Source



Your idea violates the First Amendment's statement that Congress shall pass no law. It also violates the Constitution because the delegated power to spend money on this isn't there. Can you actually provide sources for your statements?
Give up, you can't debate with this guy. He doesn't know anything.
 
Top Bottom