I'm not sure what your objection to this man is. He is entitled to Freedom Of Association, that seems to be central to his philosophy. Rand Paul took heat for saying that some of our nondiscrimination laws are in conflict with our Freedom of Association. By any objective view, this is true. Invoking the commerce clause or the 14th Amendment to force people to do business with everyone as a condition of doing business with anyone is clearly in conflict with our rights, even if it seems "fair".
@Americcan The game that Rand and his father Ron wants to play is the typical back door routine of allowing industry to deny civil rights to people. Now if you are not too concerned with how unfair that is, why should anyone be concerned when the "unfairness" comes your way? We have done well for almost 50 years. Only the bigots in this country are upset about it all, and frankly I could care less.
Individual rights are not "allowed" by society. The constitution doesn't create your civil rights, it enumerates them so they can be protected. You do not have a "civil right" to force yourself on the private property or person of another individual. By the same token, for government to deny him his freedom to work or do business because you objection to whom he chooses to associate with is a trampling of liberty.
@Americcan I see...so if you want to excersise your freedom of association or your freedom of speech, and instead of the goverment trying to take them away, it is group of private citizens telling you you will not congregate or speak on matters, that will be fine based on your interpretation, correct?
" it is group of private citizens telling you you will not congregate or speak on matters"
I don't have a right to congregate or speak on private property. You are free to exclude me from your home, the constitution doesn't treat your business property differently than it does your residence. If it does, I'm certain you will point to the part which does and specifically explain why it would apply.
@Americcan Don't add the "Private property" caveat. I didn't say that. It doesn't apply Stick with what I said. I asked can you stop private citizens from denying you your freedom of expression and freedom of association? And I mean regardless of where you excercise this. Hell, your interpretation makes it possible to exclude this right from your own home!
Rand Paul was only speaking of private property and freedom of association. So if you don't want to use those terms, then your post makes no sense. Your right to freedom of speech exists in your home, on a "press" you own, and in the public square. You do not have a right to be on someone else's private property or trample his freedom of association on his private property. That was Rand Paul's point. Other than that and his position on 2nd Amendment rights, he's an ass.
@Americcan Okay, let me try this another way. What guarentees those rights you speak of? The problem with the argument people like Paul make is it suggests that only the federal government is beholden to the Consitiution. By that logic, no one is bound to the rule of law. How can they be? Your rights are not protected in Paul's interpretation of the Constitution.
"The problem with the argument people like Paul make is it suggests that only the federal government is beholden to the Consitiution."
That's pretty much the case, except that as a matter of logic, the Constitution must apply to all government inside the US because while the state's constitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution (since the Civil War). But the role of the Constitution is to enumerate the rights of the people, and the limitations on government.
@OnePeoplesProjecttv The role of the Constitution is to guarantee that you and I have civil rights which are not trampled by government and have equal standing before that government. It is not to guarantee that we are social or economic equals. I am not Bill Clinton's social or economic equal and I probably never will be. He gets to belong to the country club, I don't. Like a lot of people, you seem to think that life should be "fair".
"By that logic, no one is bound to the rule of law. How can they be? Your rights are not protected in Paul's interpretation of the Constitution." Rand's objection is that "public accommodations" law violate PRIVATE property.
Example: At one time, blacks weren't allowed on the public beach in OC. That's a violation of their rights, because it's a public beach. However, a private beach should be able to exclude anyone its owner chooses to exclude.
@Americcan Okay, so again, what protects his rights? The Consitiution? It can't. It has no power under what you propose. Only the federal government is compelled to obey the law, no one else.
If Jesse Jackson goes to the beach in Ocean City and a private citizen orders him off the public beach with physical force, then the police will arrest the private citizen and prosecute him. If a cop orders Jackson off the public beach (because he's black) then Jackson can file charges or a lawsuit which will be adjudicated by the justice branch and enforced by the executive branch.
However, if Jesse Jackson is walking on a private beach, then the property owner is entitled to order him off his beach, and use force to remove him if he refuses. He can even call him a nigger the whole time, and there is no recourse because it's private property.
@Americcan Jesse Jackson can out gun him and even force him off his property, even put a bullet in his head for flinging out the N-Word, and there would be no recource for that either because it is between two private citizens. That is the kind of country you are talking about.
"That is the kind of country you are talking about."
You could not logically have derived that from anything I have written. What's pretty clear here is that you have a childlike notion of "fairness" and think that the Constitution can be twisted to mean what you think it means. It's actually a fairly simple document. It was not intended to nor is it possible to guarantee equal outcome, and that's what people like you seem to want.
@Americcan Well, you might call it "childlike", but truth of the matter is the rest of the country is going to keep the structure as it is. The reason why lies in the fact that you cannot explain to me how are you going to protect the rights of private citizens when the government in your world is beholden to the Consitiution while the rest of us are not. And that is something you have written. Now if you can't explain that, you know those that need to cannot as well, so again nothing changes.
The government can protect your rights, the ones which actually exist as opposed to the ones you have in your head. You cannot join certain clubs. That's not an infringement on your right, it's the members right to associate with people whom they choose to associate. The government would have no business forcing that club to admit you. Rand Paul's complaint is that the courts have wrongly interpreted that operating a business changes the status of the property.
@Americcan But that is how the government protects rights. When the Consitiution was first formed it did what you said, restricted the government from interfering in an individual's personal choice. Subsequent amendments were put in to make it illegal (unconstitutional) for commercial businesses and public services. Rand Paul is wrong, and that's not going to change. And given the climate of today's society, every person fighting for it to had best hope it fails.
"Subsequent amendments were put in to make it illegal (unconstitutional) for commercial businesses and public services."
No amendment to the Constitution was intended to usurp private property rights. Just as the 14th Amendment was not intended to give citizenship to the children of illegals, nor was it intended to force property owners to rent to people they don't want. Court rulings have violated intent of these laws, and that is not their role.
@Americcan There's no violation. Conservatives have tried to spin this trash for years, but its a losing battle. Because if there is indeed something that allows anyone in this country to violate civil rights while claiming that it is preserving it, that means the Consitiution is flawed and it will generate another amendment that you will not like. It's like what Macko said in the video, if you want the kind of society you are looking for, you will have to leave the country.
Are you aware that Fair Housing Law doesn't apply to owner occupied property of less than five units? Explain to me why the court recognizes the private property and freedom of associate of a boarding house or small building owner occupant, but not a ten unit owner or hotel.
@Americcan four or less if the owner lives in one of the units, and they still might be subject to state laws. Owner occupancy tends to be exempt from Federal law given how small they are. That's why they also mom and pop stores don't catch hell about diversifying their work force.
@Americcan No, stupid would have been conceeding my rights and freedoms to your bullshit spins. So if you feel you can't handle the discussion, go ahead and split.
I'd love to know what objective standard you are using to support your claim that we have been doing well for the last 50 years. Almost every dire prediction made during the Civil Rights Movement has come true. The size of the black middle class has increased a bit, but the black community living below the McMansion level has pretty much crashed and burned, while being in total denial about the root causes for that.
@Americcan "Root causes!" Oh, I love it when THAT talk comes up! Why don't you just spit it out, eh? Don't be coy!
And to answer your standard, let's just say it is my experience that you are very wrong. Where's your stats about the black community crashing and burning? And don't say look at Detroit or some crap like that. I mean real stats.
@Americcan Well, let's run down the list. I have never disrespected anyone's property, I come from a family of educators, I think I have been pretty civil to you, and not only I have never committed a crime, but I have even been a cop. Oh, and the property values are just fine in my neighborhood and it is predominately black. My hometown is one of the top five places to live according to Money Magazine.
@Americcan I live not too far from a neighborhood in the Frankford area Philadelphia that is a heroin-addicted wreck and it is predominately white. I moved from a black neighborhood in West Philly is is rather middle class. And with more black people buying homes in the suburbs, it is going to be seen more and more, as I said earlier, that it is not them that causes the problems, but conservatives and their hangups.
I didn't ask you if you knew where there was a crappy white neighborhood. I didn't ask you if there were some black neighborhoods which were better than some white neighborhoods. I asked you to name a neighborhood that is now black that is "better" (meaning safer and more desirable) than it was when it was white.
Are you aware that DC and Philadelphia public schools were once amongst the best in the nation? What are they now?
@Americcan Well, I can tell you how a neighborhood was when it was white, because I don't know what neighborhoods they might be or how they were. And frankly, DC and Philly are pretty congested which adds to the problem. Happens all the time with major cities. That might be why you want to focus on them and not the smaller towns that black people live in where what you are looking for is not as apparent.
I'm not sure what your objection to this man is. He is entitled to Freedom Of Association, that seems to be central to his philosophy. Rand Paul took heat for saying that some of our nondiscrimination laws are in conflict with our Freedom of Association. By any objective view, this is true. Invoking the commerce clause or the 14th Amendment to force people to do business with everyone as a condition of doing business with anyone is clearly in conflict with our rights, even if it seems "fair".
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan The game that Rand and his father Ron wants to play is the typical back door routine of allowing industry to deny civil rights to people. Now if you are not too concerned with how unfair that is, why should anyone be concerned when the "unfairness" comes your way? We have done well for almost 50 years. Only the bigots in this country are upset about it all, and frankly I could care less.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
Individual rights are not "allowed" by society. The constitution doesn't create your civil rights, it enumerates them so they can be protected. You do not have a "civil right" to force yourself on the private property or person of another individual. By the same token, for government to deny him his freedom to work or do business because you objection to whom he chooses to associate with is a trampling of liberty.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan I see...so if you want to excersise your freedom of association or your freedom of speech, and instead of the goverment trying to take them away, it is group of private citizens telling you you will not congregate or speak on matters, that will be fine based on your interpretation, correct?
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
" it is group of private citizens telling you you will not congregate or speak on matters"
I don't have a right to congregate or speak on private property. You are free to exclude me from your home, the constitution doesn't treat your business property differently than it does your residence. If it does, I'm certain you will point to the part which does and specifically explain why it would apply.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Don't add the "Private property" caveat. I didn't say that. It doesn't apply Stick with what I said. I asked can you stop private citizens from denying you your freedom of expression and freedom of association? And I mean regardless of where you excercise this. Hell, your interpretation makes it possible to exclude this right from your own home!
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
Rand Paul was only speaking of private property and freedom of association. So if you don't want to use those terms, then your post makes no sense. Your right to freedom of speech exists in your home, on a "press" you own, and in the public square. You do not have a right to be on someone else's private property or trample his freedom of association on his private property. That was Rand Paul's point. Other than that and his position on 2nd Amendment rights, he's an ass.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Okay, let me try this another way. What guarentees those rights you speak of? The problem with the argument people like Paul make is it suggests that only the federal government is beholden to the Consitiution. By that logic, no one is bound to the rule of law. How can they be? Your rights are not protected in Paul's interpretation of the Constitution.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
"The problem with the argument people like Paul make is it suggests that only the federal government is beholden to the Consitiution."
That's pretty much the case, except that as a matter of logic, the Constitution must apply to all government inside the US because while the state's constitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution (since the Civil War). But the role of the Constitution is to enumerate the rights of the people, and the limitations on government.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Yeah, but those right enumerated are now mere suggestions due to what you consider to be government's limitations, state and otherwise.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv The role of the Constitution is to guarantee that you and I have civil rights which are not trampled by government and have equal standing before that government. It is not to guarantee that we are social or economic equals. I am not Bill Clinton's social or economic equal and I probably never will be. He gets to belong to the country club, I don't. Like a lot of people, you seem to think that life should be "fair".
Americcan 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
"By that logic, no one is bound to the rule of law. How can they be? Your rights are not protected in Paul's interpretation of the Constitution." Rand's objection is that "public accommodations" law violate PRIVATE property.
Example: At one time, blacks weren't allowed on the public beach in OC. That's a violation of their rights, because it's a public beach. However, a private beach should be able to exclude anyone its owner chooses to exclude.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Okay, so again, what protects his rights? The Consitiution? It can't. It has no power under what you propose. Only the federal government is compelled to obey the law, no one else.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
"Okay, so again, what protects his rights?"
Who is "his" referring to?
If Jesse Jackson goes to the beach in Ocean City and a private citizen orders him off the public beach with physical force, then the police will arrest the private citizen and prosecute him. If a cop orders Jackson off the public beach (because he's black) then Jackson can file charges or a lawsuit which will be adjudicated by the justice branch and enforced by the executive branch.
Americcan 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
However, if Jesse Jackson is walking on a private beach, then the property owner is entitled to order him off his beach, and use force to remove him if he refuses. He can even call him a nigger the whole time, and there is no recourse because it's private property.
What is so hard about this?
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Jesse Jackson can out gun him and even force him off his property, even put a bullet in his head for flinging out the N-Word, and there would be no recource for that either because it is between two private citizens. That is the kind of country you are talking about.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
"That is the kind of country you are talking about."
You could not logically have derived that from anything I have written. What's pretty clear here is that you have a childlike notion of "fairness" and think that the Constitution can be twisted to mean what you think it means. It's actually a fairly simple document. It was not intended to nor is it possible to guarantee equal outcome, and that's what people like you seem to want.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Well, you might call it "childlike", but truth of the matter is the rest of the country is going to keep the structure as it is. The reason why lies in the fact that you cannot explain to me how are you going to protect the rights of private citizens when the government in your world is beholden to the Consitiution while the rest of us are not. And that is something you have written. Now if you can't explain that, you know those that need to cannot as well, so again nothing changes.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
The government can protect your rights, the ones which actually exist as opposed to the ones you have in your head. You cannot join certain clubs. That's not an infringement on your right, it's the members right to associate with people whom they choose to associate. The government would have no business forcing that club to admit you. Rand Paul's complaint is that the courts have wrongly interpreted that operating a business changes the status of the property.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan But that is how the government protects rights. When the Consitiution was first formed it did what you said, restricted the government from interfering in an individual's personal choice. Subsequent amendments were put in to make it illegal (unconstitutional) for commercial businesses and public services. Rand Paul is wrong, and that's not going to change. And given the climate of today's society, every person fighting for it to had best hope it fails.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
"Subsequent amendments were put in to make it illegal (unconstitutional) for commercial businesses and public services."
No amendment to the Constitution was intended to usurp private property rights. Just as the 14th Amendment was not intended to give citizenship to the children of illegals, nor was it intended to force property owners to rent to people they don't want. Court rulings have violated intent of these laws, and that is not their role.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan There's no violation. Conservatives have tried to spin this trash for years, but its a losing battle. Because if there is indeed something that allows anyone in this country to violate civil rights while claiming that it is preserving it, that means the Consitiution is flawed and it will generate another amendment that you will not like. It's like what Macko said in the video, if you want the kind of society you are looking for, you will have to leave the country.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@Americcan Best hope their efforts fail, I should say.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
Are you aware that Fair Housing Law doesn't apply to owner occupied property of less than five units? Explain to me why the court recognizes the private property and freedom of associate of a boarding house or small building owner occupant, but not a ten unit owner or hotel.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan four or less if the owner lives in one of the units, and they still might be subject to state laws. Owner occupancy tends to be exempt from Federal law given how small they are. That's why they also mom and pop stores don't catch hell about diversifying their work force.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
"four or less if the owner lives in one of the units"
Yeah, that's what "owner occupied property of less than five units" means.
Done with you. You either aren't very bright or act deliberately stupid.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan No, stupid would have been conceeding my rights and freedoms to your bullshit spins. So if you feel you can't handle the discussion, go ahead and split.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
I'd love to know what objective standard you are using to support your claim that we have been doing well for the last 50 years. Almost every dire prediction made during the Civil Rights Movement has come true. The size of the black middle class has increased a bit, but the black community living below the McMansion level has pretty much crashed and burned, while being in total denial about the root causes for that.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan "Root causes!" Oh, I love it when THAT talk comes up! Why don't you just spit it out, eh? Don't be coy!
And to answer your standard, let's just say it is my experience that you are very wrong. Where's your stats about the black community crashing and burning? And don't say look at Detroit or some crap like that. I mean real stats.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
Root causes:
• Disrespect for the property of others
• Disrespect for education and those who value it
• Disrespect for civility and good manners
• Crime rates which are multiples of representation or of any other group.
The real estate values don't go down because the neighbors have black skin, it goes down because the black neighbors bring problems.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Well, let's run down the list. I have never disrespected anyone's property, I come from a family of educators, I think I have been pretty civil to you, and not only I have never committed a crime, but I have even been a cop. Oh, and the property values are just fine in my neighborhood and it is predominately black. My hometown is one of the top five places to live according to Money Magazine.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
Name a black neighborhood in Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington that is better now than when it was white.
Name a black high school in one of those cities that is safer than it was when it was white.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan I live not too far from a neighborhood in the Frankford area Philadelphia that is a heroin-addicted wreck and it is predominately white. I moved from a black neighborhood in West Philly is is rather middle class. And with more black people buying homes in the suburbs, it is going to be seen more and more, as I said earlier, that it is not them that causes the problems, but conservatives and their hangups.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
You have a problem giving direct answers to direct questions.
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Must be contagious. I hope you were able to respond to my question to you about rights.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago
@OnePeoplesProjecttv
I didn't ask you if you knew where there was a crappy white neighborhood. I didn't ask you if there were some black neighborhoods which were better than some white neighborhoods. I asked you to name a neighborhood that is now black that is "better" (meaning safer and more desirable) than it was when it was white.
Are you aware that DC and Philadelphia public schools were once amongst the best in the nation? What are they now?
Americcan 9 months ago
@Americcan Well, I can tell you how a neighborhood was when it was white, because I don't know what neighborhoods they might be or how they were. And frankly, DC and Philly are pretty congested which adds to the problem. Happens all the time with major cities. That might be why you want to focus on them and not the smaller towns that black people live in where what you are looking for is not as apparent.
OnePeoplesProjecttv 9 months ago