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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (3182)	1/16/2006 5:53:16 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

I wasn't arguing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be declared unconstitutional, but that it is flawed, so "settled law" isn't really an issue (although now that I think of it is constitutionally questionable). I think its practical effect is mostly good, in fact quite possibly very strongly so, however I think it encroaches against a very important principle. Politically it is always difficult to stand for a principle against a very important practical gain. Still more so when some of the people supporting the principle are doing so because they are bigots or political opportunists who want the support of bigots. But obnoxious company doesn't make you wrong. If a bigot, or a serial killer, or whatever argues for free speech that isn't a reason to start a massive campaign to control people's speech, or to consider free speech rights less important. The principle in this case is freedom of association. It isn't directly a constitutional right (at best it is constitutionally protected by limits on the power of the federal government but than the states would still be somewhat free to trample on it), but it is a vital principle, and it is abusive to trample on it, even when such trampling is done for a good cause, and with good effect. Tim

To: michael97123 who wrote (3182)	1/16/2006 6:17:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

If i am reading you right I don't believe you are. The states have no constitutional power to say that someone can not vote because of race. They are in fact expressly constitutionally forbidden from doing so. Anyone who claimed that power under the idea of "states rights" was either ignorant or dishonest about the powers granted to the states under the constitution. You seem to want to let these people keep the "states rights" banner, and then argue against the ideas represented by the banner. Instead the banner should be torn from their hands.