(02-17-2012 02:54 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes it's relevant to the discussion we're having about the commerce clause.

No...you're attempting to justify the mandate by quoting the commerce clause. Then you tried defending the commerce clause by trying to pin the RACIST tag on anyone who doesn't agree that the commerce clause is/was a good thing...ergo...straw man.

Jesus. Yes I justified the mandate by quoting the Commerce Clause. Rebel said my interpretation of the Commerce Clause was too broad, f*ckin communist/socialist etc etc, and that it should be rolled back to the pre-FDR interpretation. I brought up the Civil Rights Act among others because, under the pre-FDR interpretation, it would be struck down. That's how it became relevant through the course of this discussion.

(02-17-2012 02:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What the hell kind of question is that? It provides a prohibition against shopkeepers and private businesses from discriminating against people on account of race. That wasn't in the Bill of Rights.

..and I don't believe in that either. Business owners should be able to cater to whomever they want to cater to, at their own peril. Case in point the bus boycott of Selma. Black people got pissed by being forced to the back of the bus. They boycotted. White bus company owners got pissed because of the drop-off in business and started to cave. The free market would have rectified the entire situation without the need for a civil right's act. It was only needed because their protections under the US Constitution weren't being enforced. As for segregated public venues? They were unconstitutional, again, without the need for the CRA, it would have been rectified had the US Constitution been enforced. Case f'n closed.

What protections under the US Constitution weren't being enforced? Nothing in the Constitution prevented these private owners from discriminating.

There was Jim Crow, segregation and private discrimination in the South for nearly 100 years after slavery ended so no, the "free market" doesn't rectify the situation.

(02-17-2012 03:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  
What protections under the US Constitution weren't being enforced? Nothing in the Constitution prevented these private owners from discriminating.

You're aggregating two topics, public and private. Nothing in the US Constitution prevents a private company from catering to whom it sees fit, nor should it. That's where the free market comes to play. White bus companies wanted black business. The boycott worked very well.

Quote:There was Jim Crow, segregation and private discrimination in the South for nearly 100 years after slavery ended so no, the "free market" doesn't rectify the situation.

The free market most definitely rectifies the situation. It was just not given the chance due to their constitutional rights being violated. Beatings, turning on hoses, etc., have nothing to do with a Gdamn commerce clause. That's the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that protects them from that and the Feds and local officials should have enforced it at that time.

So if I understand you correctly, if the police didn't beat marchers or hose them, there would have been no need for the Civil Rights Act because the shopkeepers all over the South would have seen the errors of their ways or wanted more business from blacks? The incentive to open up their stores to attract more blacks had always been there and done nothing to encourage that behavior. There were boycotts in some areas and they didn't always work out like your bus example.

Actually, the perverse effect of the hosing and beatings was gaining the sympathy of people watching on TV, in the North especially, who supported the civil rights legislation as a result. There was virulent opposition in the South though and no matter what happened, some businesses were going to continue to discriminate, probably for decades longer until opinion shifted enough.

What does any of this race hysteria have to do with Obamacare and the mandate?

(02-17-2012 03:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  
So if I understand you correctly, if the police didn't beat marchers or hose them, there would have been no need for the Civil Rights Act because the shopkeepers all over the South would have seen the errors of their ways or wanted more business from blacks? The incentive to open up their stores to attract more blacks had always been there and done nothing to encourage that behavior. There were boycotts in some areas and they didn't always work out like your bus example.

Had they boycotted all of the businesses that made them eat from behind the store, or pick their food up at the back door, or rode in the back of the bus, etc., those business owners would have had to wise up. The best thing that the Fed could have done was to create a "temporary" loan program to give small business loans to black Americans to start their own businesses. If anything happened after that, white people beating them, their shops burned, that falls under the state's Code of Laws and, to more of an extent, a violation of their Civil Rights, a federal offense. Yes, there were already laws on the books to protect them. Once the white business owners started seeing federal loans going to black Americans to start their own businesses, they would have started getting their sh*t together because they knew they'd lose business. So, damn right the free market would have rectified that situation. You're a "lawya". Leave the business side of it up to me.

Quote:Actually, the perverse effect of the hosing and beatings was gaining the sympathy of people watching on TV, in the North especially, who supported the civil rights legislation as a result. There was virulent opposition in the South though and no matter what happened, some businesses were going to continue to discriminate, probably for decades longer until opinion shifted enough.

It was an emotional response, not a logical response. Emotion is the basis of liberalism. It's why we have 20 damn laws covering one f'n thing today. A "logical" response would be to enforce the damn laws already on the books and provide loans through the SBA or its predecessor program to empower them.

As for other things like voting, using facilities at public facilities, anything else that has to do with "public", it was all a violation of their civil rights, unconstitutional, and should have been enforced. It wasn't. That isn't an indictment that requires a new piece of legislation. You don't solve the problem of ignoring the US Constitution by creating another piece of legislation. You stop ignoring the damn US Constitution.

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Had they boycotted all of the businesses that made them eat from behind the store, or pick their food up at the back door, or rode in the back of the bus, etc., those business owners would have had to wise up.

But there were boycotts organized in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the 1964 passage of the Act, and they did not always lead to white business owners changing their discriminatory practices. That's why the Act was necessary.

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  The best thing that the Fed could have done was to create a "temporary" loan program to give small business loans to black Americans to start their own businesses.

Whoa, I don't know if something like that would pass muster under your originalist interpretation. Unless you've abandoned it and are arguing for an expansive interpretation of the "general welfare" (taxing and spending) clause. What are you, some kind of f'in socialist/communist?

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  If anything happened after that, white people beating them, their shops burned, that falls under the state's Code of Laws and, to more of an extent, a violation of their Civil Rights, a federal offense. Yes, there were already laws on the books to protect them.

It was a federal civil rights offense under Section 1983 but only if it's a state actor.

Okay, there were laws on the books to protect black shopkeepers. How does this end discrimination again?

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Once the white business owners started seeing federal loans going to black Americans to start their own businesses, they would have started getting their sh*t together because they knew they'd lose business. So, damn right the free market would have rectified that situation.

Why, because they'd want the federal loans too? That's an interesting solution, though I think it still would have taken years to wipe out discrimination and smacks of f'in socialism/communism.

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  You're a "lawya". Leave the business side of it up to me.

If you leave the law side of it up to me.

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  It was an emotional response, not a logical response. Emotion is the basis of liberalism. It's why we have 20 damn laws covering one f'n thing today. A "logical" response would be to enforce the damn laws already on the books and provide loans through the SBA or its predecessor program to empower them.

There were no laws on the books to prevent private businesses from discriminating. There still would have been stubborn racists unwilling to open their doors to blacks and we'd still see separate fountains at some places. The 1964 CRA was the most effective way, and perhaps the only way, of ending it.

(02-17-2012 03:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Had they boycotted all of the businesses that made them eat from behind the store, or pick their food up at the back door, or rode in the back of the bus, etc., those business owners would have had to wise up.

But there were boycotts organized in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the 1964 passage of the Act, and they did not always lead to white business owners changing their discriminatory practices. That's why the Act was necessary.

Of course it had an impact on them. It's why it got violent. It's also why they should have enforced their civil rights through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Max Power Wrote:

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  The best thing that the Fed could have done was to create a "temporary" loan program to give small business loans to black Americans to start their own businesses.

Whoa, I don't know if something like that would pass muster under your originalist interpretation. Unless you've abandoned it and are arguing for an expansive interpretation of the "general welfare" (taxing and spending) clause. What are you, some kind of f'in socialist/communist?

Extenuating circumstances sometimes require unpopular, but necessary measures to fix a certain problem. Many of these black Americans were veterans of WWII and Korea. It's why I said "temporary". It was a problem we had to fix, but one that should have had a terminal date. These actions have taken place since the beginning of the nation's founding and no, don't compare it to bailing out f'n GM.

Max Power Wrote:

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  If anything happened after that, white people beating them, their shops burned, that falls under the state's Code of Laws and, to more of an extent, a violation of their Civil Rights, a federal offense. Yes, there were already laws on the books to protect them.

It was a federal civil rights offense under Section 1983 but only if it's a state actor.

Okay, there were laws on the books to protect black shopkeepers. How does this end discrimination again?

What was a federal offense only if it was a state actor, beatings by white citizens? If the state fails to act, the federal government has the responsibility to act. The state becomes the "actor" by it's inaction.

Max Power Wrote:

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Once the white business owners started seeing federal loans going to black Americans to start their own businesses, they would have started getting their sh*t together because they knew they'd lose business. So, damn right the free market would have rectified that situation.

Why, because they'd want the federal loans too? That's an interesting solution, though I think it still would have taken years to wipe out discrimination and smacks of f'in socialism/communism.

I seriously doubt we'd have many problems we have today had we taken my approach. As for the white business owners, they had no problems getting loans. Again, extenuating circumstances require unpopular, but necessary measures. It's not Socialism or Communism. It would be a temporary program. I guess you think providing them with welfare and entitlements as seen under the "Great" Society worked out well and, as a "plan" was all that and a bag of chips. It neither empowered them nor brought them out of bondage. Quite the opposite.

Max Power Wrote:

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  You're a "lawya". Leave the business side of it up to me.

If you leave the law side of it up to me.

You're not really impressing me by siding with things that occurred under FDR and court-stacking to get 4 terms, previously unconstitutional.

Max Power Wrote:

(02-17-2012 03:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  It was an emotional response, not a logical response. Emotion is the basis of liberalism. It's why we have 20 damn laws covering one f'n thing today. A "logical" response would be to enforce the damn laws already on the books and provide loans through the SBA or its predecessor program to empower them.

There were no laws on the books to prevent private businesses from discriminating. There still would have been stubborn racists unwilling to open their doors to blacks and we'd still see separate fountains at some places. The 1964 CRA was the most effective way, and perhaps the only way, of ending it.

Again, I have no constitutional problem with a private business discriminating whom it wishes to do business with. They do it at their own financial peril. If I went to "The Black Pages" and wanted to take out an ad, should they be forced to place my ad in their book? I'm being completely hypothetical here, just wondering. As for fountains, those are public and it is unconstitutional to segregate public facilities, within the same sex, that the taxpayers, of all races, pay for. Stop aggregating the two and no, I think the CRA was COMPLETELY unnecessary. It may have achieved it's perceived goal, but at the cost of many liberties that should have been to everyone's avail, and would be had the laws been enforced.

(02-15-2012 04:03 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The conservative "media persecution" line only appeals to other conservative "victims". It's just like any other group that constantly feels the need to remark on their ongoing state of victimization and discrimination.

Good Lord. So the media isn't liberal? They're not defending Obama with every cell in their body?

Even liberals were ashamed at the open support Obama received in the media in 2008. And the media continues to parrot the lines given to them by Media Matters and Moveon.

Dan Quayle misspelled "potato" and it was a national catastrophe - more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis. But Obama said that he had been to "all 57 states" and there was no media coverage at all.

What a freakin' joke.

(02-17-2012 04:16 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 04:03 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The conservative "media persecution" line only appeals to other conservative "victims". It's just like any other group that constantly feels the need to remark on their ongoing state of victimization and discrimination.

Good Lord. So the media isn't liberal? They're not defending Obama with every cell in their body?

"LOOK AT THAT!!!! FAUX NEWS NEED TO BE TAKEN OFF THE AIR! THEY'RE BIASED! /sarcasm

Quote:Of course it had an impact on them. It's why it got violent. It's also why they should have enforced their civil rights through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Yeah, instead of opening up their doors for blacks they went to the police to crack down on the freedom marchers. Surely if the police said no then they would have ended their discriminatory practices.

Quote:Extenuating circumstances sometimes require unpopular, but necessary measures to fix a certain problem. Many of these black Americans were veterans of WWII and Korea. It's why I said "temporary". It was a problem we had to fix, but one that should have had a terminal date. These actions have taken place since the beginning of the nation's founding and no, don't compare it to bailing out f'n GM.

So a "temporary" violation of the general welfare clause is okay? Name your examples. I bet you're thinking of either Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (specifically authorized in the Constitution for times of rebellion) or the Espionage and Sedition Acts in WWI (shakier but that's a First Amendment challenge that survived because there was a compelling reason and we were in wartime). I don't see how you can justify this "temporary loan program" by reconciling it with your originalist interpretation of the Constitution. There's no war, no justification for martial law.

Quote:What was a federal offense only if it was a state actor, beatings by white citizens? If the state fails to act, the federal government has the responsibility to act. The state becomes the "actor" by it's inaction.

The Civil Rights act you're talking about, of 1871. You say the beatings are a violation of their civil rights already in place because of Section 1983 and the 4th Amendment:

Quote:Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

I just clarified that the beatings are only civil rights violations when done by a state actor ie, "under color of law" under Section 1983. The civil rights laws in place at the time only applied to the state.

Quote:I seriously doubt we'd have many problems we have today had we taken my approach. As for the white business owners, they had no problems getting loans. Again, extenuating circumstances require unpopular, but necessary measures. It's not Socialism or Communism. It would be a temporary program. I guess you think providing them with welfare and entitlements as seen under the "Great" Society worked out well and, as a "plan" was all that and a bag of chips. It neither empowered them nor brought them out of bondage. Quite the opposite.

It's as much a "socialist/communist" abuse of the general welfare clause as my interpretation of the commerce clause. Saying "it's temporary lol" doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

Quote:You're not really impressing me by siding with things that occurred under FDR and court-stacking to get 4 terms, previously unconstitutional.

I'm siding with things that occurred under FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, GW Bush, etc. Generations of justices have interpreted the clause this way.

Quote:Again, I have no constitutional problem with a private business discriminating whom it wishes to do business with. They do it at their own financial peril. If I went to "The Black Pages" and wanted to take out an ad, should they be forced to place my ad in their book? I'm being completely hypothetical here, just wondering. As for fountains, those are public and it is unconstitutional to segregate public facilities, within the same sex, that the taxpayers, of all races, pay for. Stop aggregating the two and no, I think the CRA was COMPLETELY unnecessary. It may have achieved it's perceived goal, but at the cost of many liberties that should have been to everyone's avail, and would be had the laws been enforced.

If they deny you on account of your race, possibly.

There are/were private fountains. Forget about public. I agree the Constitution already prohibited Jim Crow, school segregation etc. But the 1964 Act was necessary to end private discrimination. Without it, it would have no doubt extended into the 1970s, maybe even into this century.

(02-17-2012 04:16 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Dan Quayle misspelled "potato" and it was a national catastrophe - more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis. But Obama said that he had been to "all 57 states" and there was no media coverage at all.

What a freakin' joke.

If the President had "corrected" someone by saying there are 57 states, then the two incidents would be somewhat equivalent. Regardless, neither deserve the rehashing that they receive.

(02-17-2012 04:16 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 04:03 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The conservative "media persecution" line only appeals to other conservative "victims". It's just like any other group that constantly feels the need to remark on their ongoing state of victimization and discrimination.

Good Lord. So the media isn't liberal? They're not defending Obama with every cell in their body?

Even liberals were ashamed at the open support Obama received in the media in 2008. And the media continues to parrot the lines given to them by Media Matters and Moveon.

Dan Quayle misspelled "potato" and it was a national catastrophe - more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis. But Obama said that he had been to "all 57 states" and there was no media coverage at all.

What a freakin' joke.

It's 2012 buddy...lol.

And the 57 states didn't get much play because everyone knew he said 50...then paused and then said 7...and anyone with half a brain knew he meant 47 because he went on to cite the ones he had not been to. And he never said "all" as you quoted.

Rebel, look at what Madison (Father of the Constitution) has to say about your socialist/communist abuse of the general welfare clause to give loans to black business owners:

Quote:However, in his last act before leaving office, he vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817, which would have financed more internal improvements, including roads, bridges, and canals:[82]

Having considered the bill ... I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States.... The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified ... in the ... Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.

Madison rejected the view of Congress that the General Welfare provision of the Taxing and Spending Clause justified the bill, stating:

Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.

SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST!

Max is so "in the tank" it's pathetic. I believe he is a lawyer, and like any lawyer, can AND WILL argue virtually any point... Often to the point of arguing about what we are arguing about. His circuitous positions are merely a deflection from the bottom line. The argument by him, or one of his brethren that republicans are the ones shifting was priceless. It's Obamas plan, and it was Obama who described it. Is it a tax, in which case he is a bald faced liar... Or is it NOT a tax, in which case his argument before the appeals courts is flawed on its face? Unlike this conversation, Obama doesn't get two bites at the SCoTUs apple.

Obama has pretty famously insisted he knew how the supreme court would rule on something twice... And was wrong both times. IMO, he will be wrong again... And max's opinion, as colored by his political affiliation as it is, is meaningless to the debate... Because best I know, nobody on here is a SC member, and Obama won't be able to switch gears as max does.

I don't like Obamacare. Seriously, without going and cutting and pasting from somewhere, can ANYONe tell me what will be covered under the plan? I'm willing to bet an equal number of people think "everything" will be covered, and "basics" will be covered, with 14 different definitions of what is basic. Is acne treatment covered? How about varicose veins? What about skin tag biopsies? Can anyone tell me without looking?

LOL... Nope. Good point.

Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using Tapatalk

Yet millions of people are up in arms either direction over whether or not abortions, which impact a minute fraction of those that would be impacted by skin biopsies or acne or varicose veins

Just shows how effective people like max have been at clouding the issue

We know how much tarp was, and tarp 2... How much is Obamacare?

Nobody knows

Doesn't that seem odd that we don't know what is covered or how much it costs, yet it is thousands of pages of law with apparently thousands of exemptions?

That is the crime, if you ask me.