Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.

[FIND]

???

I modified my post

 

[shagdrum]

Please quote the part you are referring to verbatim, including the relevant parts of the section in their entirety. This means any part that determines context, creates exceptions, or otherwise has any such bearing on the "part." It would be easiest if you were to quote the entire section, and bold the parts that you wish to pay specific attention to for the purposes of our discussion

I have been out all day in hot, humid weather on a farm and only skimmed parts of the law. Basically, I am talking about Title II sections a, b and c (though I may be missing some relevant parts):

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.​

This goes above simply removing institutional discrimination in government (at various levels) to affecting private businesses and private property. That is not focused on equal treatment under the law (which is the context solely of the government); equality of (legal) process. It goes toward equality in life/living standards. It attempt to change the morals of society through influencing (and eventually changing) human nature by outlawing a certain standard of judgment; specifically discrimination based on race, gender, etc.

There is also some problem with the Constitutional justification through the interstate commerce clause (which is what part "c" is essentially concerned with).

Though, I do believe that all people should have as close to equal opportunity as reasonably possible without reducing a person's opportunities, barring significant mental or physical impediments.

I agree that society should take care of certain people with disabilities, and help people who have "slipped through the cracks" and are down on their luck. But not out of any sense of equality. Simply out of common decency. That is a very significant distinction, as the reasoning has strong implication on how best to handle that assistance/care and whether other, more far reaching (and potentially intrusive) policies are called for.

Equal opportunity is a) ultimately incompatible with equality under the law, and b) works more toward the "equal standard of living" end of the dichotomy drawn between the different conceptions of equality/justice in the various worldviews that dominate politics.

Also, the means that this is done and the standards by which potential beneficiaries are judged is ill suited to being handled by the federal government, in my view.

I can elaborate on any of this if you like, but I would need to know specifically where and how you are unclear of what I am saying or where specifically the point of contention is.

However, that will have to be done either tomorrow evening or Monday evening. I am dead tired right now and have a busy day tomorrow and Monday.

Good night and have a good memorial day weekend.

 

[FIND]

This goes above simply removing institutional discrimination in government (at various levels) to affecting private businesses and private property. That is not focused on equal treatment under the law (which is the context solely of the government); equality of (legal) process. It goes toward equality in life/living standards. It attempt to change the morals of society through influencing (and eventually changing) human nature by outlawing a certain standard of judgment; specifically discrimination based on race, gender, etc.

Addressing these issues only, since interpretation of the constitution is subjective.

Changing morals of society, while in some cases it can lead to a bad outcome, is not inherently wrong. Take cammerfe's case, it would be of benefit to all people if those events he had witnessed or been a part of, didn't happen. The persons involved would likely be happier if they were freed from irrational fear and hatred.

As far as going towards equal life/living standards. I cannot see how you would interpret it in that manner, as nothing in the CRA states that you must adjust the amount charged for goods or services based upon a persons ability to pay. Yes, this does effect private businesses and private property, however, some intrusion by law is necessary into private property.

Now, while states have the power to govern themselves, they must meet the standards of the federal government. While cities can manage themselves, they must meet the standards of the states. While neighborhoods and communities can manage themselves, they must meet the standards of the city. While businesses and households can manage themselves, they must meet the standards of everything before them.... You of course know how it works but yeah. Those on the bottom level set standards, and each level above sets more standards, while meeting the standards of those below. Just like no neighborhood can decide they can allow female genital mutilation. But on the other hand, no one on the levels before can limit the standards as long as they are meeting at least the standards from previous levels. For instance, the federal government cannot tell a state that they cannot raise the legal drinking age to 25 inside their state. The city cannot tell a store that they cannot require shirts, shoes, and to not be covered in feces, just because the city only requires a person to meet a minimum standard of decency or hygiene.

Therefore, if you are a citizen of this country, you have in a way, a contract with the federal, state, and local government that you will maintain behavior that at a minimum, meets their standards and what is generally believed as good for society as a whole and not an infringement on your rights or the rights of others, and in the mean time, each of those levels of government agree to protect your livelihood and rights to the best of their abilities.... Granted, this is an oversimplification of matters, and it doesn't work out quite as cleanly, but, that is why you have the option to fight back against those governments when your rights are infringed or you feel you are living according to the standards they want, yet they are not providing for you an adequate defense.

Now, here is where this gets subjective. A standard of non-discrimination is not an infringement, as this standard does you no harm, violates none of your rights, and does not decrease the amount the government will defend your rights. You still have the right to protect yourself and your assets. You still have the right to personal enjoyment (let's leave this alone because I am perfectly aware this is a subjective statement, I am basing that enjoyment on legitimate criteria, not enjoyment based upon racial hatred or other illegitimate criteria). You still have the right to express yourself. You can post a sign on your door saying, "I hate wetbacks and hope they all go back to Mexico," and not a single person can complain unless it causes harm to someone. As long as you operate your public privately owned business as if you were colorblind, or blind to other illegitimate criteria, you are good to go.

Anyways, goodnight, and you have a good memorial day weekend as well. I will be going to bed now as well, I was only staying up to talk to my ex wife a bit. way past my bedtime

 

[cammerfe]

So, despite this treatment, you believe that business owners will not willingly choose to discriminate based on things such as race, and we will have equality and brotherhood between all persons in the United States if we stop permitting anti-discrimination legislation.

Not that I really expect you to respond to this, especially given my previous post on the matter of statements made in this fashion, but, this should serve to illustrate the point I was trying to make, correct?

I'm a little at a loss here, because it seems, if I understand you properly, that you're stating the complete reverse of my conclusions.
Let me be clear---
I believe that some degree of racism and bigotry will obtain regardless of any laws, because you can't successfully legislate regarding thoughts. It's equally objectionable as white against black as it is black against white. But the only thing completely unacceptable is for it to be OK one way and verboten the other.
In a perfect society, such thoughts would simply disappear, but our society isn't yet a utopia.

I don't know if it's correct or not, because I don't understand what point you were trying to make.
KS

 

[cammerfe]

Word use

3: I don't really care if that makes me look petty. I HATE the spelling and grammar that can be found on the internet. TXTSPK and just plain undereducation bothers me. It is like nails on a chalkboard. If you are offended, then you will not do it again. I find the easiest way to teach most people anything is to embarrass or ridicule them, as most people are far too dense to accept the fact that they are neither perfect, nor do they know it all, and in light of our recent conversation, I am fairly confident that you are one of those dense people.

My partial bible verse was in relation to your attempt to embarrass by administering a lesson regarding the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.

"undereducation" (sic)---above---is most properly written as a hyphenated construct. I have to guess at your meaning since the word you offered doesn't appear in any of my dictionaries, including my Webster Unabridged.

And, although I neither have the time nor the inclination to look for it, you seem to be shaky regarding the difference between 'infer' and 'imply'.

The bible verse you 'skated' suggests that you need to pay attention to your own shortcomings and failings before you presume to offer lessons to your betters.

You are welcome to participate in the discussions here, even though you are a 'noob'. But be wary of your predilection for admonishment. You only make yourself look silly.
KS

 

[FIND]

I'm a little at a loss here, because it seems, if I understand you properly, that you're stating the complete reverse of my conclusions.
Let me be clear---
I believe that some degree of racism and bigotry will obtain regardless of any laws, because you can't successfully legislate regarding thoughts. It's equally objectionable as white against black as it is black against white. But the only thing completely unacceptable is for it to be OK one way and verboten the other.
In a perfect society, such thoughts would simply disappear, but our society isn't yet a utopia.

I don't know if it's correct or not, because I don't understand what point you were trying to make.
KS

I realize what you were actually trying to say

I was attempting to follow up my earlier point. That a person could take a statement entirely out of context, make an imperative statement based upon that conclusion wherein they make bold assumptions on your state of mind, and that despite the fact that they made this as a statement, there is still a question in that statement, even if it is unsaid. Of course, I only made this statement because appeared to me that you were attempting to state that for me to infer a question from his statement and then correct him when he came to an incorrect solution was somehow wrong of me.

Of course, after seeing this post,

First off, I am not conceding anything, nor am I answering loaded questions like that. I am simply saying that if a person presents a clear threat, then you have certain rights. This has nothing to do with discrimination.

Secondly,

You need to be very careful before you presume to correct others. 'Remove the beam from your own...'
KS

one would easily come to this conclusion. I was hoping a visual demonstration of such would be a more effective illustration than for me to simply repeat what I had said earlier, as my explanation was previously ignored anyways.

"undereducation" (sic)---above---is most properly written as a hyphenated construct. I have to guess at your meaning since the word you offered doesn't appear in any of my dictionaries, including my Webster Unabridged.

And, although I neither have the time nor the inclination to look for it, you seem to be shaky regarding the difference between 'infer' and 'imply'.

The bible verse you 'skated' suggests that you need to pay attention to your own shortcomings and failings before you presume to offer lessons to your betters.

You are welcome to participate in the discussions here, even though you are a 'noob'. But be wary of your predilection for admonishment. You only make yourself look silly.
KS

While I believe that I know what infer and imply mean, and a quick look into Websters dictionary confirms that belief, you are correct, undereducated was not technically a word, and I forgot to use a hyphen. I was offering my point of how frustrating it is to see these types of writings all over the internet. One would hope that a person who had previously attempted to correct me on my writing and understanding of words and concepts would at least speak articulately and spell correctly. The fact that I had not been correcting him on any of the other spelling and grammatical errors I would hope would demonstrate that it was not really my intention to be petty, only that your/you're and there/their/they're are simply pet peeves of mine.

Presuming to offer lessons to my betters? Really?

I will concede my shortcoming however. I am not a writer, nor am I really a person who would consider myself particularly gifted in the areas a person would normally need to be to excel as say, an english major. My primary focuses have always been the hard sciences of Math and Physics. Of course, this is not to say that I have no skill as such with the spoken or written word, just that it is not a primary focus, and one of my weakest areas.

 

[lincolnx2]

It's been all of two weeks since I had to be 'buzzed' in to a service concern on Northwestern.

Sorry, I get sensitive when it comes to my city

I'm not in the city very much, but the last time I observed hostile signage was in a local-owned food emporium on McNichols somewhat east of Evergreen. I was passed over to be waited-on for about ten minutes, complete with dirty looks. I never opened my mouth. Just finally walked out.

How did that make you feel? Imagine if people were able to legally do that. Just imagine that business owner (who is Chaldean more than likely) coming to you and tellin you to leave his store.

Unless you count the sign in the window in the store in Northland very soon after the election.

That one said, "It's our turn now. Whitey get F U C K E D." T-shirts also in the window of that store echoed the same general sentiment.

I haven't heard of that one.

I was there for better than an hour and I didn't see a single white face.

Welcome to Detroit, thats the way I feel when I am at my mom and dads house. Detroit is segragated enough, I remember driving to Fairlane as a teenager, and the stares I got there. After my first deployment, I had saved $26K, I went to Comerica, and withdrew $16K, I was buying a car, I was 19, I had my Military ID, and my MICHIGAN License, the teller called her manager (which I didn't mind) but the manager called the Southfield Police. I closed my account, and never returned. I don't know, it may have been protocol, maybe it was because she had never seen me before, but I felt embarassed when a Police officer walked up behind me and asked to speak with me infront of a lobby full of people.

I simply take it as an indication of the basic IQ of the people who do such things. X2, if you're honest, you'll admit that the Local Majority, in general, enjoy their status. And many still champion Kwame.

I have to disagree with you, I can only speak for the people I speak with on a regular basis, but they dislike Kwame, my mom is a principal at a Detroit Public School and she was forced to accept $85K, after she was making close to $100K as a teacher. My father who works for UPS and own a janitorial business, lost 3 of his contracts, one being the Detroit Police Department. You are talking about a small minority of people who enjoy their status (welfare, unemployed...etc). I have told this story before about my uncle, he worked 10 years at Foodland in Livonia, when Foodland left, he was without a job, he started cutting grass, and shoveling snow to pay his mortgage, he live in the city, and majority of the city is just like him.

I'd be happy to buy you a cup of coffee and politely kick this around. We probably have more in common than just appreciation for the LS

I am more of a hennessy and coke man, I will be home next year sometime, I am in the Army, so I rarely make it home, but I will be more than happy to meet when I make it home. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET BACK HOME! I like to have fun, I often influence those around me to have fun also!

KS[/QUOTE]

What city do you stay in?

 

[cammerfe]

What city do you stay in?

Livonia. I was born at 14th and the Boulevard---old Providence hospital. Didn't you say that you'll be around for a few more weeks before deployment? If you have time, PM me and we'll get together before you go.
KS (Ken Sheffer)

 

[lincolnx2]

Livonia. I was born at 14th and the Boulevard---old Providence hospital. Didn't you say that you'll be around for a few more weeks before deployment? If you have time, PM me and we'll get together before you go.
KS (Ken Sheffer)

I am stationed at Fort Carson now, I am moving to Fort Campbell, KY in July, the unit I am going to deployed in March, so I will meet them over there for 6 months, then I will redeploy to Fort Campbell and await my next rendevous with destiny. It will be impossible for me to come to Detroit until I redeploy, I leave here July 1 and my report day is July 10.

 

[cammerfe]

I was under the impression that you, at present, were in the Detroit area. Please know that my thoughts and prayers will be aimed in your direction as you go in harm's way. Thank you for your service. Godspeed!
KS

 

[lincolnx2]

I was under the impression that you, at present, were in the Detroit area. Please know that my thoughts and prayers will be aimed in your direction as you go in harm's way. Thank you for your service. Godspeed!
KS

Thanks Bro! I will keep in touch with you, when I come home I owe you a beer.

 

[shagdrum]

Memorial Day weekend bled over into today. I finally got through cleaning up and am exhausted. While I plan on addressing the other points raised in post #80 in the next few days, I wanted to say something about the idea raised in post #80 of constitutional interpretation being subjective.

While it is certainly true that there is an element of subjectivity in constitutional interpretation (it is rooted in a "soft science" after all), the interpretation of the constitution is not inherently "subjective". If it were, then the rule of law would be meaningless as the politicians and would-be tyrants who's power is restricted by the Constitution could simply "re-interpret" it to allow for whatever they want.

The rationale from Chief Justice John Marshall's brilliant opinion from the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) demonstrates this:

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction...​

If the Constitution can simply be "reinterpreted" to fit whatever agenda politicians want it to, then it ceases to be the supreme law of the land and we become a nation ruled by man, not by law.

It can never be said often enough; the rule of law is the only thing that stands between a free society and tyranny.

The approach of certain schools of thought in interpreting the Constitution (specifically those that view the Constitution as a "living document") certainly inject enough subjectivity to effectively circumvent the rule of law, and there is no question that those schools of thought have dominated the SCOTUS for the majority of the 20th century, and still dominate many of the lower courts to this day (9th Circuit). But, again, that only means that one school of thought rejects any notion of objectivity in constitutional interpretation to instead be able to legislate from the bench.

Chief Justice Marshall gave what can be viewed as the litmus test for objective Constitutional interpretation in the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland when he said of legislation:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.​

The school of thought generally known as originalism uses that objective standard of the "letter and the spirit" of the constitution to interpret the constitution.

On the surface, that standard can be hard to determine. The constitution was written 1787; over 200 years ago. However, there are a large number of means from which to determine what the understanding of the constitution was at the time of it's creation.

David F. Forte shows how the original meaning of the constitution is determined in his essay titled "The Originalist Perspective":

How does one go about ascertaining the original meaning of the Constitution? All originalists begin with the text of the Constitution, the words of a particular clause. In the search for the meaning of the text and its elections effect, originalist researchers variously look to the following:

* The evident meaning of the words.
* The meaning according to the lexicon of the times.
* The meaning in context with other sections of the Constitution.
* The meaning according to the words by the Framer suggesting the language.
* The elucidation of the meaning by debate within the Constitutional Convention. The historical provenance of the words, particularly their elections history.
* The words in the context of the contemporaneous social, economic, and political events.
* The words in the context of the revolutionary struggle.
* The words in the context of the political philosophy shared by the Founding generation, or by the particular interlocutors at the Convention.
* Historical, religious, and philosophical authority put forward by the Framers.
* The commentary in the ratification debates.
* The commentary by contemporaneous interpreters, such as Publius in The Federalist.
* The subsequent historical practice by the Founding generation to exemplify the understood meaning (e.g., the actions of President Washington, the First Congress, and Chief Justice Marshall).
* Early judicial interpretations.
* Evidence of long-standing traditions that demonstrate the peoples understanding of the words.
​

There is still plenty subjectivity (for instance; should the understanding of those who created the constitution take precedent, or should the understanding of those who ratified it take precedence), but it is greatly reduced (effectively to the margins of the issue) and the core of the interpretation method is objective.

 

[FIND]

Memorial Day weekend bled over into today. I finally got through cleaning up and am exhausted. While I plan on addressing the other points raised in post #80 in the next few days, I wanted to say something about the idea raised in post #80 of constitutional interpretation being subjective.

While it is certainly true that there is an element of subjectivity in constitutional interpretation (it is rooted in a "soft science" after all), the interpretation of the constitution is not inherently "subjective". If it were, then the rule of law would be meaningless as the politicians and would-be tyrants who's power is restricted by the Constitution could simply "re-interpret" it to allow for whatever they want.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing, as I agree with most of it. I suppose I wasn't entirely clear on the way I said it. I just mean that there is a little room to the left and right for interpretation, and I believe the framers meant it that way. Certainly you cannot apply the document word for word, as things have changed so in the last 234 years. Recall, the framers were slave owners, and had no way of anticipating things like telecommunications, and much of the technology that is common place today.

As public sensibility and morals change, so too in a way must some views of the constitution. For one to say in 1776, all men are created equally, today we must interpret that as all persons, regardless of race, gender, or otherwise are truly created equally.

The constitution was not originally written to be an all controlling document that would be the beginning and end of everything. It was meant to be a document to provide the framework for this country, and it was written in such a way that it could bend where it needed to, but hold firm and support this country, as well as protecting those basic freedoms and rights we enjoy.

I would never say that the constitution should or could be reinterpreted to fit every political agenda, sadly though, that is what many people do, on all sides of the issues, whether it is the Heritage Foundation, or a radical trying to incite civil war.

What I will do is say that the constitution is flexible enough that some areas of it are subjective. This is why we have the judicial system we have today, so that they can apply objective tests to this document. We need courts that can devote the time to determine what the framers of the constitution would have said when the courts and government apply these decisions and laws that our founding fathers could not have foreseen.

 

[cammerfe]

Official Dictionary

Shag---
Please add the Bouvier Dictionary( see constitution.org) to your list of necessities for understanding what the Constitution says.

Any law is understood to have been written using words with specific meanings and the writers are assumed to know exactly what their words, as written, actually mean. Although the latest iteration of Black's is the official 'go-to' for laws written now, Bouvier is the official dictionary to be used when studying the Constitution.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer."
-- Thomas Jefferson to T. Earle, 1823.

Shag - you stated...

If the Constitution can simply be "reinterpreted" to fit whatever agenda politicians want it to, then it ceases to be the supreme law of the land and we become a nation ruled by man, not by law.

So, men should not create law - they should 'discover' law - correct?

And, you have yet to answer if you are for allowing discrimination in private business.

 

[shagdrum]

And, you have yet to answer if you are for allowing discrimination in private business.

You have yet to demonstrate any good faith in discussing anything remotely political on this forum. You do that and I would be happy to return the favor; including answering any questions you have.

I have pointed this out before. You know this.

In fact, in this post you are cherry picking Jefferson and quoting him out of context, essentially. Your little line that, "men should not create law - they should 'discover' law - correct?" inherently misrepresents Jefferson and what he was talking about. Natural Rights are inherent and can be "discovered", not laws. However, only someone with a firm foundation in the political theory this country was founded on would recognize that distinction. It is very easy to play off of people's ignorance to mislead; as you just demonstrated.

Just another example of why I don't even bother to engage you in honest debate. You don't approach any subject here with any degree of honest or integrity.

 

[foxpaws]

You have yet to demonstrate any good faith in discussing anything remotely political on this forum. You do that and I would be happy to return the favor; including answering any questions you have.

I have pointed this out before. You know this.

In fact, in this post you are cherry picking Jefferson and quoting him out of context, essentially. Your little line that, "men should not create law - they should 'discover' law - correct?" inherently misrepresents Jefferson and what he was talking about. Natural Rights are inherent and can be "discovered", not laws. However, only someone with a firm foundation in the political theory this country was founded on would recognize that distinction. It is very easy to play off of people's ignorance to mislead; as you just demonstrated.

Just another example of why I don't even bother to engage you in honest debate. You don't approach any subject here with any degree of honest or integrity.

Shag - so, you won't answer a very simple question - do you think discrimination should be allowed in private business...

Who isn't being honest -

And I had the Jefferson quotes for KS - because he was so intent on inserting Bouviers into the conversation.

Those quotes are far more complete than what most people use - most people just pull the 'coat' portion out. But, they had to do with response to KS - perhaps the very best way to understand the constitution is to understand the men behind it, and not just through a couple of legal dictionaries.

Madison was quite enthralled with the idea of making it a patriotic tome, to bring the states into line... Jefferson less so.

What I wanted to know is if you followed Coolidge's idea of law is discovered? You seemed to when you claimed that we should be ruled by law, and not by man.

Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of law.
Calvin Coolidge, to the Massachusetts State Senate,
January 7, 1914

Since laws rest on the foundation of rights - do we discover them as well?

Shag - here I am not looking for wrong or right - what I am looking for is if you think that rights are occasionally 'set aside' because in a point of time because it is better for society, and for democracy to proceed, if we do. It happened with slavery. For some odd reason it did with woman's rights. Do you think you set aside the right to discriminate in private business for a short period of time to allow a nation to grow?

As I said before bigotry is not only an instinctual behavior, it is a learned behavior as well. Would that be cause to remove discriminatory practices from private business to break a cycle of learned behavior? Would allowing discrimination in private business in the south continue a cycle of bigotry, past down from generation to generation? Learned behavior, not instinctual behavior.

Just as we 'discovered' that slavery is wrong, or not allowing women the vote is wrong, do we also discover that some ideas, although certainly based on the high morals of 'natural rights' perhaps aren't right for the time? Could the 'high road' of allowing private business to discriminate in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s been damaging to the country?

So, shag - what do you think?

 

[cammerfe]

There are some items that, in the grand scheme of things, are transcendent. Within the scope of our discussion, the Magna Carta is surely one; the Constitution of the United States is another. It seems well settled that any changes should be undertaken with great caution.

It seems, from her comments, that Foxy wants to throw the whole concept out and simply put her faith in Obummer. That must be because he's doing such a wonderful job so far.

I mentioned Bouvier because it is a sure path to understanding the mindset of the Framers.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

There are some items that, in the grand scheme of things, are transcendent. Within the scope of our discussion, the Magna Carta is surely one; the Constitution of the United States is another. It seems well settled that any changes should be undertaken with great caution.

It seems, from her comments, that Foxy wants to throw the whole concept out and simply put her faith in Obummer. That must be because he's doing such a wonderful job so far.

I mentioned Bouvier because it is a sure path to understanding the mindset of the Framers.
KS

This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama - we are talking about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - he was 3 years old...

And Bouvier - is hardly a path to understanding the mindset of the Framers - it is a good source to understanding obsolete terms and how American and English law differ. He wanted American law to be understood in the terms of American law...

It is online if anyone is really interested...
vol 1
vol 2

 

[FIND]

There are some items that, in the grand scheme of things, are transcendent. Within the scope of our discussion, the Magna Carta is surely one; the Constitution of the United States is another. It seems well settled that any changes should be undertaken with great caution.

It seems, from her comments, that Foxy wants to throw the whole concept out and simply put her faith in Obummer. That must be because he's doing such a wonderful job so far.

I mentioned Bouvier because it is a sure path to understanding the mindset of the Framers.
KS

Changes should be undertaken with caution, yes. But those documents are not perfect, and some times, changes to the laws and the way we view the laws are necessary.

As far as Foxy's comments go..... I really don't see where you got that from. Sounds more like one of the more standard conservative cop-outs. Same thing the liberals said while Bush was in office. Though I'm sure toddler Obama had a lot of influence on the CRA 1964.

As far as Bouvier goes..... sure..... it can be an aide when trying to understand the language in which it was written, but as a guide to understanding the mindset of the framers, well, no. A knowledge of history, the men involved, and a basic understanding of right and wrong are the best tools for discerning the mindset of the framers of the constitution.

Either way, the constitution is still at times a vague document. Take "unreasonable search and seizure". What in your mind constitutes a search and seizure? Going through a metal detector? Being patted down? An officer detaining you during a traffic stop to ask you a couple questions? Wire-tapping? An infra-red camera pointed at your house?

Last time I visited my old high school, there were metal detectors at the door. That is a method for an officer to use things beyond normal perception to determine what you are carrying. Many similar things have been struck down as unconstitutional, for instance there was a case a few years back, I struggle to remember the name, but the gist of it was that officers sat across the street from a suspects house and used an infra-red camera to determine if the suspect was engaging in the manufacturing of drugs, they then gained a warrant to search the home. The use of the infra-red camera was deemed an unconstitutional search, since infra-red is beyond normal perception, allowing an officer to "see" inside the walls of a house. So, can I go to the J. Edgar Hoover building and declare the metal detector unconstitutional, demanding they allow me to pass without a search?

No matter what, you have to accept that the constitution was written as a document that recognized slavery, did not recognize native americans as citizens, and did not recognize the rights of women. To call the constitution transcendent is a little off. One must recognize that change is necessary in some cases, and that it is not absolutely correct all the time. The spirit of the document is what is important though, and that is something that should not change with time. To understand that spirit, one should not go to a legal text full of definitions or the interpretations of one person, one needs to understand the men who crafted the document, the history and events of our nation and finally, right and wrong.

 

[shagdrum]

While I am sure it wasn't the intention of those bringing it up here, the slavery point that is all too often brought up with regards to the constitution in showing that it is a flawed document is an, ultimately, specious point. That the point is ultimately specious is shown by an examination of why the Constitution allowed for slavery.

The idea behind the basic point is that the Constitution is an inherently flawed document that should not be rigidly upheld. The slavery point is an example of why this is. However, the slavery issue was never, NEVER a reflection of the philosophical views the nation was founded on or that the Constitution reflects. It was an exercise in political pragmatism and compromise to ensure the ratification of the Constitution; a prospect that was very doubtful at the time. It was a rather contentious point at the Constitutional Convention and the compromise that was reached was that the importation of slaves would be phased out but that the Constitution would not hinder slavery. The South's entire economy hinged on slavery at the time and, rooted in that (and the social views that followed), a strong special interest arose that threatened the ratification of the Constitution. Hence the concession to that special interest.

From the founding of this nation, and especially after the Constitutional Convention, slavery was the 900 pound gorilla in the room; America's "original sin".

In fact, slavery was inherently in conflict with the idea of Natural Law that this nation was founded on (and was enshrined in law through the Constitution). It took nothing short of a war that nearly tore apart this nation to fix that flaw. In essence the Framers "kicked the can down the road" and left the problem of slavery for future generations to tangle with.

The issue of slavery is an anomaly in the Constitution as it inherently conflicts with the rest of the Constitution and the entire philosophical viewpoint from which the Constitution stems. It is not at all consistent with the originalist perspective, either:

One important point should be clarified early. The commitment to originalism is not a commitment to the particular practices, plans, and expectations of particular framers or of the founding generation. We are bound by the constitutional text that they adopted and by the principles embodied in that text. Their understandings about the practical implications of those principles and the particular applications that they expected to flow from them may be helpful to us as we try to figure out what exactly those constitutional principles were, but those early applications are rarely equivalent to the constitutional requirements themselves.​

As to the idea of the Constitution should reflect changing or "evolving" sensibilities of society, that in no way conflicts with originalism. The foresight of the Framers was in seeing the inherent dangers of reckless change based on the whims of the moment. That wisely put in mechanisms to prevent that; to slow down the entire process and allow for fierce debate and objective consideration. In allowing for changes to the Constitution, then attempted to defend society from the damages or that emotion driven, quick and reckless change through the Amendment process.

The process is hardly perfect, as prohibition demonstrates. But prohibition is a prime example of reckless change with society being "swept up in the moment". It is a great example of why changes to the Constitution, while necessary, should be undertaken with great consideration. Intentionally imposing a high standard inherently slows down the debate and allows for emotion driving thinking to subside and for objectivity to dominate.

There is also an inherent threat to the rule of law in reckless change. Just look at the many flawed laws passed recently under the guise of the need for "immediate action"; the Patriot Act (at least in some people's minds), TARP, Obamacare, Financial Reform, the Bailouts, etc., etc.

Originalism, in respecting the Constitution and the principles it is founded on helps insure against the damages (both direct and indirect) of reckless change:

Originalists believe in a living Constitution, of course -- we certainly wouldn't argue that the work of the Framers is dead. But we realize that if the Constitution means nothing more than what each new generation would prefer it to mean, it's already dead.

The way originalists read the Constitution, through the eyes of its authors, it remains very much alive, and very much relevant to today's political and legal discussions.​

New laws, and changes to existing law are inherently necessary for an evolving society. Of course the framers couldn't have foreseen things like the internet or many other trappings of modern life that, in many ways, inherently change the nature of life as we know it. However, when considering this fact, it should be remembered what the constitution is and is not. The constitution does not directly create law. It creates the framework and the limits inside of which law is created. It sets up a government and then limits that government all while enshrining certain principles in that government. Laws can be changed as needed, however those basic principles cannot be changed except through a slow process aimed at ensuring objective thought rules in the debating and voting on that change.

 

[foxpaws]

The idea behind the basic point is that the Constitution is an inherently flawed document that should not be rigidly upheld. The slavery point is an example of why this is. However, the slavery issue was never, NEVER a reflection of the philosophical views the nation was founded on or that the Constitution reflects. It was an exercise in political pragmatism and compromise to ensure the ratification of the Constitution; a prospect that was very doubtful at the time. It was a rather contentious point at the Constitutional Convention and the compromise that was reached was that the importation of slaves would be phased out but that the Constitution would not hinder slavery. The South's entire economy hinged on slavery at the time and, rooted in that (and the social views that followed), a strong special interest arose that threatened the ratification of the Constitution. Hence the concession to that special interest.

So, shag, why shouldn't we look at the government telling private business that they can't discriminate in the same light? Wasn't it 'pragmatic' given the explosive atmosphere surrounding the whole issue in the 60s?

The constitution wasn't 'flawed' it was, as you said 'pragmatic'. A document that reflected the time it was written.

To help move the country beyond the ingrained discrimination and segregation in the south, Title II was added. A reflection of the time it was crafted.

So, the constitution itself gives direction with regard to Title II - that rights can be pushed aside, knowingly (the founding fathers certainly realized that they were tramping on the rights of black men) if there is a greater need for the good of America.

Is the country being pulled apart in a race war because private business should 'rightfully' be allowed to discriminate good for America? Would the founding fathers set that aside for the time being to keep America 'whole and strong' as they did with the slavery issue?

And the Slave Trade Compromise actually was about encouraging slave breeding in the south, it also encouraged slave auctions... It also addressed importing slaves - but it really revolved about keeping slavery an 'American' trade.

 

[cammerfe]

Hi Foxy

This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama - we are talking about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - he was 3 years old...

And Bouvier - is hardly a path to understanding the mindset of the Framers - it is a good source to understanding obsolete terms and how American and English law differ. He wanted American law to be understood in the terms of American law...

It is online if anyone is really interested...
vol 1
vol 2

I suppose that others do somewhat as I do when writing. Both my Webster's, my Black's, and a thesaurus are handy---along with an Oxford Style Manual, a Harbrace, and other reference works. With those tomes I'm well-enough equipped to be relatively sure that the words I use reflect my thoughts.

Since the writers of any law are assumed to know what they intended to say, a Black's or, in the case of the Constitution, a Bouvier should be handy to be sure their words match their thoughts. And those trying to be sure they understand the intent of the law must also turn to the proper dictionary. Bouvier is therefore a perfect way to understand the minds of the Framers.

Since it's obvious that Obummer thinks that everything in the world is about him, it's germane to bring him into this discourse as well.
KS