Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (80840)	7/7/2004 11:56:15 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I say: "The Government has the Constitutional authority to uphold and protect all Rights granted in the Constitution." You respond: "The constitution grants no such right" Later, you quote me: "The Government has the AUTHORITY to PROTECT the Rights of people. And people have Rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and the Government is of, for, and by the people." And you respond: "The government has only the legal authority to it granted by the constitution. That includes the authority to protect constitutional rights." So, first you say that Government DOES NOT have the authority to protect all Rights granted in the Constitution; then you say the Government DOES have the legal authority to protect all Rights granted by the Constitution. Let me know when you've made up your mind what your argument is. As a beginning you might consider from where Government derives the authority to GOVERN and to express the will of the people if it is not from the Constitution! The fact of the matter is that Congress HAS the authority to legislate regarding both the rights enumerated in the Constitution and those NOT enumerated. And the fact is that the Supreme Court (as well as lesser Courts) is responsible for administering justice and for ruling on Constitutionality. And any apellate court may rule a law unconstitutional. Clearly it has the authority. The 9th states clearly that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” They did not put these words in the Constitution for nothing. They put them in to make it clear that the Constitution was dynamic and flexible to the needs of future society and social progress. ”But I'll tell you what, if such a situation arises where the 15 or so biggest companies selling consumer non-durable goods all decide to not sell to Asians, I'll support a constitutional amendment granting the government the authority it would need to make such laws as the 1964 Civil Rights law.” If your argument is no good when racism runs rampant, then your argument is no good after it has been prevented from running rampant after centuries of having done so. Oh…I see, you will support anti-discrimination laws provided you set the benchmark? This proves that your argument till now has been based on emotion rather than principle. If discrimination laws are wrong then they are wrong…PERIOD. If they require a certain level, of discrimination to be remediable, then your opinion that the vicious and brutal inequality of segregation and the like was not to the requisite level, is simply your unsubstantiated opinion and is hardly an argument. No particular Amendment is required to justify the Civil Rights Act or other such Acts to give people equality under the law. The ninth and the fourteenth Amendments empower such laws to be fashioned by the Constitutional authority of the Congress and to be interpreted and validated by the Supreme Court acting under Constitutional authority. Anti-discrimination laws are fully Constitutional until ruled to be otherwise. Perhaps you are wiser than the Supremes. Perhaps you will one day sit on the High Court and teach your fellow Justices how to properly interpret the Constitution. But here in 2004, the Constitution gives the Courts judicial authority. "You can not violate such laws by not doing something for someone, only by doing something to someone" That expresses a rather shallow understanding. Do you think that not feeding your kids is above the idea of "mistreatment". I know other people's kids are not your own, but the point I want you to get is that rights and laws and legal obligations are not so simplistic as you would argue. We are not their children, but we are citizens under the aegis of the State. As citizens of the State we have certain rights enumerated in the Constitution and other rights acknowledged in the Constitution but not enumerated--rights legislated into defined awareness by congressional authority (as given by the Constitution)--and rights affirmed and validated by the Constitutional judicial authority of the Courts. One of these rights is the right to not be denied the purchase of essential goods and services. If YOUR argument holds, then you WOULD have the right to charge different prices in your store for Jews than for others (you are not "mistreating" them. They don't have to buy; they don't have to be there). They WOULD have to drive 20 miles (or 30, 40, or 100) to get a jug of milk for their kids (or walk if they had no car). Of course, by your way of thinking they could pull their kids from school, move somewhere else--perhaps close to a grocery store, a store that (at least for that day) SAID they would sell to them (no guarantees about next week). Is THAT what being a citizen of the United States with "equal rights under the law" means to you??