Here you go Beau, your very own thread to discuss Rand Paul's civil rights
So I ask you again, what was so wrong with Rand Paul's civil rights?
You'll need to not mention the bridge in this thread because it has nothing to do with Rand's position.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
So I ask you again, what was so wrong with Rand Paul's civil rights?
You'll need to not mention the bridge in this thread because it has nothing to do with Rand's position.
Rand Paul dismisses the Civil Rights Act as violative of someone's right to use his property as he sees fit. Mr. Paul at the same time says that he is pro-Civil Rights and would have marched with MLK (easily said!).
The problem with his view is that the courts have soundly rejected it, there is a big difference between the constitutional rights of businesses and the rights of individuals and there are responsibilities of those engaging in public commerce, namely following the law and taking all comers at face value. When you think about it, that's what the 14th amendment equal protection is all about.
So I find his legal position specious. (Reagan came up with the same sort of logic when he started his career objecting to open housing, then went on to object to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). If we were talking about the 2nd amendment, he would be called anti-gun, no matter how much he feels the credibility of his legal position. But we are not; so what is Rand -- highly technical on shaky, dismissed legal grounds? Or not learned enough in the law, as a non-lawyer?
And his oh so technical legal objection would have been of little help to the folks getting beat up on that bridge in Selma, AL.
So, I don't know about Rand's civil rights (which was the question) but I know his legal views as to the 1964 Civil Rights Act are BS. You then can make your own conclusions.
Rand Paul dismisses the Civil Rights Act as violative of someone's right to use his property as he sees fit. Mr. Paul at the same time says that he is pro-Civil Rights and would have marched with MLK (easily said!).
And the problem is?
Quote:
The problem with his view is that the courts have soundly rejected it, there is a big difference between the constitutional rights of businesses and the rights of individuals and there are responsibilities of those engaging in public commerce, namely following the law and taking all comers at face value. When you think about it, that's what the 14th amendment equal protection is all about.
No, you're wrong. That's not what the 14th amendment is about. You're forgetting life liberty and property. A private business is private property. You have an arguement if it's a public company but not one that's private. Second, what in the world does the federal government have to do with property and/or buisness within a state? Thay have no jurisdiction there because it's a state's rights issue.
Quote:
And his oh so technical legal objection would have been of little help to the folks getting beat up on that bridge in Selma, AL.
What does Democrats beating up blacks (a violation of the law) have to do with property owner rights? In no way has Rand Paul deffended the actions of those Democrats. Please post a link if I'm wrong.
I've noticed, you have no objection to the UNCF discriminating against white people do you? You have no problem with the Ms. Black American beauty pagent do you? How about curves and/or ladies fintess? I bet you have a problem with all male golf courses or all white golf course? I certainly don't give a crap! It's private property and I believe in freedom and tolorance. That means accepting the rights of others to do as they seem fit with their property and that includes businesses.
So tell me again, how stating that the federal government's unconstitutional envasion of property rights under the guise of civil rights is some how anti civil rights movements? Where is he wrong and don't hide behind the errant courts. It's anti freedom but then you liberals are all about that when it selectively hurts your feelings..
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
I've noticed, you have no objection to the UNCF discriminating against white people do you? You have no problem with the Ms. Black American beauty pagent do you? How about curves and/or ladies fintess? I bet you have a problem with all male golf courses or all white golf course? I certainly don't give a crap! It's private property and I believe in freedom and tolorance. That means accepting the rights of others to do as they seem fit with their property and that includes businesses.
Hey Beau, you also claimed equal protection under the law. I guess that doesn't apply to property owners now does it? You deny them the equal protection under the law to use THEIR personal property as they see fit. Why are their rights not important to you?
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
What does Democrats beating up blacks (a violation of the law) have to do with property owner rights? In no way has Rand Paul deffended the actions of those Democrats.
Mr. Paul uses skewed legal theory and ignores some obvious injustices by southern racist conservatives. The state police were not Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
I've noticed, you have no objection to the UNCF discriminating against white people do you? You have no problem with the Ms. Black American beauty pagent do you?
You'd have to ask me on St. Patrick' day when they crown the queen. America has a long history of ethnic festivals. As they say around here, 'Dzien dobry!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
I bet you have a problem with all male golf courses or all white golf course?
Private clubs? No. It just says something about the members, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
I believe in freedom and tolorance. That means accepting the rights of others to do as they seem fit with their property and that includes businesses.
Your laissez faire view of business regulation went out of fashion in America in the ealry 1800's. Public accomodations have responsibilities.
So tell me again, how stating that the federal government's unconstitutional envasion of property rights under the guise of civil rights is some how anti civil rights movements? Where is he wrong and don't hide behind the errant courts. It's anti freedom but then you liberals are all about that when it selectively hurts your feelings..[/quote]
Mr. Paul uses skewed legal theory and ignores some obvious injustices by southern racist conservatives. The state police were not Democrats.
They absolutely were and quit changing the topic. Rand Paul said the government went too far in saying and individual doesn't have their own property rights. You're bringing up government services.
Quote:
You'd have to ask me on St. Patrick' day when they crown the queen. America has a long history of ethnic festivals. As they say around here, 'Dzien dobry!'
So tell me again what's wrong with whites only restaraunts if the private property owner wishes it to be that way? Don't now throw in ethinicity while we are arguing racial issues.
Quote:
Private clubs? No. It just says something about the members, that's all.
You're right but that's a personal issue and we are discussing private property rights. While we might agree it's a bad choice, though you have no problem with Black institutions discriminating, you have a problem with white private property folks doing the very samething.
Quote:
Your laissez faire view of business regulation went out of fashion in America in the ealry 1800's. Public accomodations have responsibilities.
No, you're over stepping into unconstitutional grounds is the probelm. Private property is just that, PRIVATE. It's not public and they have the right to use it how they see fit. Too bad your intolerant more so than the people who choose to limit their customer clientel. Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to invade the personal property of and individual. You cited equal protection clause but errantly forgot equal protect of the right of the property owner to use his or her property as they see fit. We're not talking public property or tax paid for services. So in that sense Rand Paul was correct and as I so pointed out, you have no problem when it's black institutions doing the very same thing.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Last edited by Fieldmouse; 07-18-2010 at 05:01 PM.
PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind.
I did some quick research on this subject? Is the above quote from Fox News the entire exchange and/or explanation of what he meant? You can guess where he's going with the above quote but it doesn't spell everything out as clearly as you'd like.
I disagree with Rand about the law only being for places that have public funding. I don't think that was the intent of the legislation at all. This issue of where property rights end and racial discrimination begins could extend to other areas as well, such as disabilities, etc. It's an interesting concept that would obviously hijack the topic.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
No Cal, it doesn't hijack the topic because the topic is regarding the civil rights legislations vs property rights. I'm already prepared to give you an example of the libs using the power of the federal government to exclude handicap people from enjoying public property. On the left, restrictions are ok to protect the group involved even when public property is involved. When provate proerty is involved forget about it.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Here you go Beau, your very own thread to discuss Rand Paul's civil rights
