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.
They also tend to believe race-based slavery would've just 'magically gone away' without any government actions on behalf of the American People. They are simply delusional.
because it did elsewhere and where it existed for so long (or at all) was thanks to the very government you hold in such high esteem. We can see consistency isnt your strong suit.
Well there is reality and then there is your fantasy version.
Calling something is "publicly accessible" is a ploy by politicians to impose relationships on those who wouldn't otherwise have them of their own free will. Sorta like when your mother would shove you out the door and insist you go play with the neighbor kid Billy who picks his nose and eats it.
I think I understand what you're saying here however I don't think you should assume that some of the folks here agree with the provisions of the various Civil Rights Acts. Some folks, usually self-identified libertarians, do not agree with Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also tend to believe race-based slavery would've just 'magically gone away' without any government actions on behalf of the American People. They are simply delusional.
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
As Frank noted, your beloved State was the major reason why chattel slavery existed and flourished for eons through a myriad of "laws".
Pardon us pro-freedom folks for not believing in "asking" (via legislation) the very institution responsible for slavery to end it. Pardon us once more for not asking permission to proceed from the government on a host of other issues that violent no natural rights.
It's my one lone/major problem with Lysander Spooner's efforts as an anarchist. You can't negotiate/reason with terrorists by playing their game. He did so in his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
because it did elsewhere and where it existed for so long (or at all) was thanks to the very government you hold in such high esteem. We can see consistency isnt your strong suit.
It was either that or way back in the 1780s concede that the northern and southern colonies should simply form two separate nations from the start. In which case the, well, let's call this "Confederacy-from-the-start" would be Brazil with seasons. The Third World starting at the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. And don't think for one minute the end of slavery would mean the end of oppression. Our own history proves that. Humans simply will do bad things to others without a higher authority's intervention. Sorry to bust your bubble, but business and scientific excellence are two things, rule-making excellence is quite another and moral/ethical excellence is still another thing entirely.
Those laws and definitions have been on the books a long time and not a recent scribbling of some fictitious politician you choose to blame. If we are to have a fruitful discussion regarding rights according to legal US law, then you need to understand that the topic is legal US law... it is the foundation of the discussion here.
If you choose to ignore that and make up your own fictitious laws, then you really aren't on topic here and simply rambling.
Frank's laws aren't fictitious. He wears a suit, stamps his papers, and works out of an ornate building downtown.
That's as legit as it gets.
If you got that going for ya and by the grace of God you've now achieved the moral and logical right to rule over another man.
It was either that or way back in the 1780s concede that the northern and southern colonies should simply form two separate nations from the start. In which case the, well, let's call this "Confederacy-from-the-start" would be Brazil with seasons. The Third World starting at the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. And don't think for one minute the end of slavery would mean the end of oppression. Our own history proves that. Humans simply will do bad things to others without a higher authority's intervention. Sorry to bust your bubble, but business and scientific excellence are two things, rule-making excellence is quite another and moral/ethical excellence is still another thing entirely.
World governments slaughtered 260 million people in the 20th century alone.
I bet one or two or maybe even three of those dead folks would like to turn back the clock and see how this thing shakes out without the "higher authority" horning in.
It was either that or way back in the 1780s concede that the northern and southern colonies should simply form two separate nations from the start. In which case the, well, let's call this "Confederacy-from-the-start" would be Brazil with seasons. The Third World starting at the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. And don't think for one minute the end of slavery would mean the end of oppression. Our own history proves that. Humans simply will do bad things to others without a higher authority's intervention. Sorry to bust your bubble, but business and scientific excellence are two things, rule-making excellence is quite another and moral/ethical excellence is still another thing entirely.
Because the north and south would never trade and thus enrich each other? We can agree slavery is abhorrent then and now (as we are), but the technology of the day was going to abolish slavery without Lincoln murdering 600k people (give or take a 100k), the destruction of scarce resources, the forced conscription of peaceful peoples and the jailing of dissidents. Not to forget your beloved civil war really wasn't really about the abolishing slavery now was it?
That slipping feeling is the moral high ground disappearing from under your feet.
As Frank noted, your beloved State was the major reason why chattel slavery existed and flourished for eons through a myriad of "laws".
Pardon us pro-freedom folks for not believing in "asking" (via legislation) the very institution responsible for slavery to end it. Pardon us once more for not asking permission to proceed from the government on a host of other issues that violent no natural rights.
It's my one lone/major problem with Lysander Spooner's efforts as an anarchist. You can't negotiate/reason with terrorists by playing their game. He did so in his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
Seriously? You talking 'bout "asking via legislation"? You talking 'bout legislation period full stop. You talking 'bout being "pro-freedom"?
It's Orwellian:
Quote:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Slaver States v. Free States & their negotiations ( this is akin to your "asking for legislation" ) began at the Constitution Convention & continued right on up to & throughout the American Civil War. Here's just some of the evidence from before the ACW:
A review of the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress reveals more than 300 proposals in regard to negotiations, some of these are Amendments to the United States Constitution, all are designed to avert military conflict. President Buchanon was the 1st to propose.
'US Constitution & Secession'is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing the many amendments proposed during this time frame, all designed to avert military conflict ( <-- this is akin to your "negotiating/reasoning with terrorists" ).
Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slaver State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.
Other significant issues discussed:
Return of fugitives slaves
Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
Dred Scott decision
Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)
The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.
The Slave States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
Southern states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the Slaver States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)
Negotiations between Free States & Slaver States were ongoing from the Constitutional Convention right on up to & throughout the war.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27–30, enacted April 9, 1866, was the first United States federal law to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law.
Even after the war, attempts were made to appease the Slaver States, they would have none of it. They continued to rail against the Free United States, its people, & President Lincoln. Resentful about losing their 'peculiar institutions', they set out to preserve, protect, & defend their 'way of life' based on white supremacy through the enactment of local & state laws.
The Slaver States resisted assimilation into the Free United States for over a century.
Some folks still do. Specifically folks who have 'issues' with Civil Rights Acts, whether from 1866 or 1966 or 2019.
Which Civil Right Acts ( any of them, or any Title ) do you, personally, have issues with?
I lean liberal. I supported the the bakery that refused to bake a gay wedding cake. I would not support the government forcing any individual how they should live nor tell anyone how should run their business.
People don't understand that there is a difference between refusing service due to race creed or color versus refusing to provide a service they don't offer.
A Bible store should not refuse service to a person because of their religion is not catholic... But they should not be forced to sell other religious text. A Jew should be allowed to buy a Bible from a Bible store but not walk into a Bible store insisting to be sold the Torah.
The bakery offered the service of making wedding cakes. They didn't walk in and ask for a TV or anything that the bakery didn't already offer for sale.
The bakery offered the service of making wedding cakes. They didn't walk in and ask for a TV or anything that the bakery didn't already offer for sale.
I find the bakery owner's rationale & scenario very similar to the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. owner's lame rationale:
Quote:
(1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States
Supreme Court rules that the federal government can force businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Owner of the motel had argued that the federal government overstepped its authority and violated the 5th amendment that allowed him to operate his business as he pleased. He also claimed a violation of due process and “involuntary servitude” for being mandated to rent rooms to African Americans.
The court found that the refusal to rent accommodations to African American travels was a disruption to interstate commerce and the federal government maintained the right to regulate businesses, within reason, regardless of the 5th amendment.
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.
