Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, to be fair, in his opinion the federal government can't say it's illegal to discriminate, but state governments can all they want.
Federal laws against discrimination are predicated on interstate commerce (that is, the fed has to say discrimination is illegal because of it's adverse impact on interstate commerce). On the other hand, the state has general police powers (not enumerated powers like the fed), so the state can simply say it's illegal without having to come up with a jurisdictional hook like the fed does.
Then again,the 14th amendment never put language in there. So does that mean I can discriminate against people who don't speak english who come into my restaurant?
Well, to be fair, in his opinion the federal government can't say it's illegal to discriminate, but state governments can all they want.
Federal laws against discrimination are predicated on interstate commerce (that is, the fed has to say discrimination is illegal because of it's adverse impact on interstate commerce). On the other hand, the state has general police powers (not enumerated powers like the fed), so the state can simply say it's illegal without having to come up with a jurisdictional hook like the fed does.
A state cannot deny U.S. Constitutional rights to free speech within its borders.
Neither can it deny any U.S. Constitutional rights afforded by the 9th Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment protects individuals from state "law", any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The State, is ultimately a lesser entity under Constitutional protections than an individual. FKn crackers just can't seem to grasp this.
Racists are hierarchical idiots - Racism has less to do with race than it does money.
A lot of money buys a lot of law, man.
The worst racists are liberals, because they need unconstitutional statutes to keep themselves from being who they really are. They depend on fear of force as much as any inhibited criminal to keep themselves "civil". A pretentious lot, those liberals.
If the majority of judges and lawyers in the U.S. weren't owned and operated by international banking interests, this country's constitution might be able to function.
As Paul pointed out the Jim Crow laws that produced segregation were a product of government. Without the power of the state neither slavery or Jim Crow would have been possible. The free market reduces discrimination to a minimal level. A private business owner should have the same rights as a private home owner.
A state cannot deny U.S. Constitutional rights to free speech within its borders.
Neither can it deny any U.S. Constitutional rights afforded by the 9th Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment protects individuals from state "law", any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The State, is ultimately a lesser entity under Constitutional protections than an individual. FKn crackers just can't seem to grasp this.
Racists are hierarchical idiots - Racism has less to do with race than it does money.
A lot of money buys a lot of law, man.
The worst racists are liberals, because they need unconstitutional statutes to keep themselves from being who they really are. They depend on fear of force as much as any inhibited criminal to keep themselves "civil". A pretentious lot, those liberals.
If the majority of judges and lawyers in the U.S. weren't owned and operated by international banking interests, this country's constitution might be able to function.
RON PAUL ADVOCATES WISH TO BRING THIS ABOUT.
I'm not sure what your point is.
My point was that while the federal government can only exercise a limited set of enumerated powers, state governments have general police powers, which means that state governments can enact laws more easily.
Case in point - civil rights.
In a state, they pass civil rights just because they want to. In federal government, they have to figure out what enumerated power would allow them to pass civil rights - it was the commerce clause (and there are exceptions to make sure the civil rights act does pass constitutional muster).
I might add that the 14th amendment protects people from state governments, because the 14th amendment is what allowed SCOTUS to incorporate the bill of rights (make them apply to the states).
So I'm not sure what you mean by the 9th amendment protecting people from state laws - the 14th amendment does. The 9th amendment merely states that the bill of rights does not list what rights people have, it merely outlines rights that the government may not infringe, however, it is not a complete list, so the 9th amendment was added to clarify that fact.
You'll note that the Bill of Rights does not state that you have been granted by the government the right to bear arms; it says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Ultimately, however, we're talking about private actors, and only the 13th amendment applies to both public and private actors, all other amendments apply only to the government.
One of the problems is most Americans are no longer familiar with natural law and natural rights theories which are the foundation of our Constitution. A good article Natural Law and Natural Rights
Freedom of association is a basic natural right. Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the natural right of man to freely associate; so are laws prohibiting discrimination. To give the government the power to restrict freedom of association is quite dangerous.
Napolitano: Well, natural law is the belief that our rights come from our humanity. We’re created by God in His image and likeness, and just as He is perfectly free, we are perfectly free. So freedoms for which all rational people yearn—to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, to worship or not to worship, to travel, to have intimate relations with a person of our choosing, the right to be left alone, the right to be free from governmental restraint without the government showing some evidence of guilt on our part—these are natural rights that come from our humanity.
Positivism teaches that the law is whatever the lawgiver says it is, and that all rights come from the government. So under positivism, if the First Amendment were to be abolished then there’d be no freedom of speech. Under the natural law, if the First Amendment were abolished there would still be freedom of speech because it is a natural right that preexisted before the government. This debate between positivism and natural law did not occur in the Continental Congress, because the Declaration of Independence, which is the culmination of the Continental Congress, is a pure natural-law document. When Jefferson wrote, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happinessâ€â€”key words “by their Creator†and “unalienableâ€â€”he was wedding to the American soul something that he always believed, even as a child, and well into his adulthood and until the time of his death, which is that our rights come from our humanity.
This argument—naturalism vs. positivism—has been going on for thousands of years. It rears it head 11 years later in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, when they’re writing the [Constitution]. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and the big-government crowd were positivists and argued that rights come from the government. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t physically there, but James Madison, who of course was, made the natural-law argument.
There are both positivistic and natural-law components to the Constitution, but for the most part the natural-law side wins because of the agreement to put a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, because of the notion that the Constitution specifically defines federal power and then restrains the government, keeping it—as [Supreme Court Justice William O.] Douglas once said—off the people’s backs.
Most people in the government, from the time of George Washington to Barack Obama, will claim that they believe in natural rights. With the exception of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland, they all have been positivists. They all believe that the government can do whatever it wants. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to disparage most of the government, were signed by John Adams, the same John Adams that was present at the Constitutional Convention and who signed the Declaration of Independence. George Washington signed the fugitive slave law, which exempted whites from state kidnapping law if they kidnapped and restrained fugitive slaves and brought them back to their owners. These guys were enacting this horrific legislation, notwithstanding that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which stands for natural rights.
My point was that while the federal government can only exercise a limited set of enumerated powers, state governments have general police powers, which means that state governments can enact laws more easily.
Case in point - civil rights.
In a state, they pass civil rights just because they want to. In federal government, they have to figure out what enumerated power would allow them to pass civil rights - it was the commerce clause (and there are exceptions to make sure the civil rights act does pass constitutional muster).
I might add that the 14th amendment protects people from state governments, because the 14th amendment is what allowed SCOTUS to incorporate the bill of rights (make them apply to the states).
So I'm not sure what you mean by the 9th amendment protecting people from state laws - the 14th amendment does. The 9th amendment merely states that the bill of rights does not list what rights people have, it merely outlines rights that the government may not infringe, however, it is not a complete list, so the 9th amendment was added to clarify that fact.
You'll note that the Bill of Rights does not state that you have been granted by the government the right to bear arms; it says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Ultimately, however, we're talking about private actors, and only the 13th amendment applies to both public and private actors, all other amendments apply only to the government.
The "commerce clause" allows a drug war because pot smokers are made so less materialistic as to reduce sales of "material" products shipped interstate. Much of a reach?
The Ninth Amendment properly protects individual rights without need of the 14th, which incorporated individuals, thus GRANTING rights that were previously INHERENT by natural law.
The U.S. Supreme Court consistently refuses to hear 9th Amendment cases.
Why, you'd thing the 9th Amendment never even existed.
The War on Drugs violates everyone's Ninth Amendment rights.
"The right to smoke pot shall not be infringed."
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176
No, the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, making them apply to states. It did not "incorporate individuals," what does that mean?
Of course, this gives rise to the question of exactly what rights you think the 9th amendment would cover, since I'm sure most people would disagree, this issue made especially more difficult since the 9th amendment (like the rest) was not originally meant to apply to the states.
No, the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, making them apply to states. It did not "incorporate individuals," what does that mean?
"Person" is an abstract term for individual.
The 14th Amendment converted individuals into persons, with as much abstraction, or artificiality, as it does in converting corporations into persons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nr5667
Of course, this gives rise to the question of exactly what rights you think the 9th amendment would cover, since I'm sure most people would disagree, this issue made especially more difficult since the 9th amendment (like the rest) was not originally meant to apply to the states.
The 9th Amendment allowed exercise of all rights to individuals not causing harm to other individuals. There is no possibility of a list large enough to list them all, and they need not BE listed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
