There's no need to prove anything, we were choosen to be "the best country to live in" FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS IN A ROLL by the U.N.!! This means that Canada are doing super at every single angle of society!

So, do I, as a Canadian listen to the same opinion shared by billions of billions of voices all around the world, or one puny voice from a hardcore conservative person living in the U.S.

The choice is obvious!

[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]

"How do you tell a Blink fan? Somebody who listens to Blink. How do you tell an anti-Blink person? Somebody who understands Blink."

Well, you get the idea.

(And BlueElectron, some would make the same argument about listening to the billions who say there is a God)

[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]

quote:

---

we were choosen to be "the best country to live in" FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS IN A ROLL by the U.N.!! This means that Canada are super at every single angle of society! So, do I, as a Canadian listen to the same opinion shared by billions of billions of voices all around the world, or one puny voice from a hardcore conservative person living in the U.S.

---

Nope, doesn't mean that at all. Firstly, the U.N. isn't 'billions of voices,' it's a hundred or so folks, half of whom hate the US, and most of the rest of whom are Moderate-to-Diehard Socialists. These are also the people who have SUDAN a place on the Human Rights Board. PLEASE. That doesn't engender confidence in their logical thought processes.

quote:

---

You think that that law stopped discrimination by private institutions?

---

As soon as it no longer pays to discriminate, they change. Laws, lawsuits and fines. When a private company does something illegal, yup, that will stop 'em sure as shootin.

quote:

---

The states, and I mean Alabama, etc wouldn't have done diddly squat to prevent discrimination against blacks.

No government has any right to prevent privite discrimination against anyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Its just a case where sometimes the states just aren't going to do the right thing. Of course, today it would have been struck down and minorities would continue to have been discriminated in American restaurants and hotels.

Under any circumstances, right or wrong, useful or no, the government STILL didn't have the authority to do what it did, and it was STILL violating the rights of property owners. Nothing changes those simple facts.

---

As usual, the above statements are wild speculations and also as usual have no documentation as foundation and are full of errors. Afterall, the question asked about a state...such as Alabama. Here, allow me to point the this in the right direction.

quote:

---

Amendment 14

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Part of the 14th Amendment is known as the Equal Protection Clause.

A state can not act as an instrument of discrimination as many sates of the South did. The Federal Government has the right and the duty to step in in such cases as say state sponsored segregation.

quote:

---

They especially needed protection against unfriendly action in the States where they were resident. It was in view of these considerations the Fourteenth Amendment was framed and adopted. It was designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States. It not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, but it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and authorized Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. To quote the language used by us in the Slaughter-House Cases, 'No one can fail to be impressed with the one pervaiding purpose found in all the amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been suggested,-we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over them.' So again: 'The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied, and by it [the Fourteenth Amendment] such laws were forbidden. If, however, the States did not conform their laws to its requirements, then, by the fifth section of the article of amendment, Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation.' And it was added, 'We doubt very much whether any action of a State, not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes, as a class, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision.'

If this is the spirit and meaning of the amendment, whether it means more or not, it is to be construed liberally, to carry out the purposes of its framers. It ordains that no State shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (evidently referring to the newly made citizens, who, being citizens of the United States, are declared to be also citizens of the State in which they reside). It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

---

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879

And corporations are creations of a State. As such:

quote:

---

The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. Regulation of a business to prevent waste of the state's resources may be justified. And statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do
enter into agreements, are within the state's competency.

---

Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)

In the above, the Court clearly concluded that business is open to regulation. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 takes advantage of such. It reads:

quote:

---

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

---

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

A state can not act as an instrument of discrimination as many sates of the South did.

Of course. No one's arguing about state-sponsored segregation. We're talking about private discrimination.

The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases.

The Consitution doesn't guarentee that I have a right to put my feet on my desk. I have my feet on my desk at this very moment, and I doubt anyone will argue that I do not have that right. Look at the ninth ammentment some time.

In the above, the Court clearly concluded that business is open to regulation.

The court was wrong. This is where the tenth ammendment comes into play: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, the government CAN'T do it. Simple as that.

And corporations are creations of a State.

No, they're not. They're creations of a number of people who gather together in a single endevour.

Do you dispute the idea that the Military can be a symptom of Authoritarian Thinking? Hitler had his SS, Pinochet had his Caravan of Death. Etcetera.

My point? If you want to refer to the idea of the HRC as a symptom of authoritarian thinking, fine. I will push to you the idea that the military is also a symptom of authoritarian thinking, and is more likely to be as such than the HRC which, compared to the military, has very little power.

You have a hijacked jet with terrorists on board. The Military now has the authority to shoot down that jet if is poses a threat to a populated area. Okay, so you're protecting a populated area, but the killing of innocent people by the military is itself pretty damn authoritarian if you ask me (assuming no threat to a populated area is possible). And it robs the innocent people of their right to private property, that is, their lives. Please tell me how you would explain this.

I have much more to challenge you, Omega. I'll be posting later.

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

quote:

---

And corporations are creations of a State.

No, they're not.

---

Based on what, your fervent hope that it's just not so?

The Constitution is the law...for that single point at least I'm glad to see you understand. Amendments to the Constitution place restrictions on discrimination based on public accommodation even for private people.

The Court has never said (and please for the love of Mike, will you capitalize the Supreme Court the way it's supposed to be) that you in your racist zeal can hate people with brown eyes till your gristled little heart collapses in bile. It has said, however, that in certain cases of public accommodation, that you can not.

quote:

---

Therefore, in order to reach the actions of individuals, Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under. Discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in public establishments that had a connection to interstate commerce or was supported by the state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VI of the civil rights act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employer is engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other laws dealing with employment discrimination.

---

Can be found here. From Cornell Law School.

Again, what we have here is a case where you, Omega, and your Philosophy of One

• do not read a) history or b) law to support or research arguments...
• do not document a single thing you argue...
  
• do not attempt to understand the complexities of the law and the Constitution...
• do not understand the role of the Court in the system in which you live...
• and above all else, when challenged, fall back to using a "naw uh" defense and "cause I said so" line of logic and argumentation....
  

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
~ Hamlet, Act I. Scene V.

Read -> Research -> Discover -> Analyze -> Understand.

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Don't you need a permit to burn something or sell products, etc?

Ya I know, it's a pain, but it is somewhat of an accepted reality.......

This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say.

1) It is not a law. The HRC does not enforce decisions on you. What it does is find out if you deliberately participated in an act of discrimination against the complainant. If it does, then it moves into legal proceedings like a lawsuit in which the HRC represents the complainant. Sometimes, the complainant can choose to go on its own, but that means they have to forget the HRC report.
2) Even with a Conservative or Libertarian government, you have to fill out permits for many things. So even in that instance, you don't have control, you're basically jumping the hoops of whatever government agency they direct you through. It's a pain, but it's reality.

You mean steal? No. They buy it at full market value (or higher) and if they don't, large stinks occur. It's relatively rare that anyone doesn't agree to sell for the price they're offered. One example, though, is that some idiot three blocks down from me was offered probably twice what his house was worth for his land, so they could build a library there. He didn't sell, God only knows why. So they built the thing three blocks further away, in a flood plain. But they didn't steal his house, by any means.

1) No stealing here. But whenever Government tries to buy their land to use in whatever project they want, words always scream "expropriation". Usually is because of some stubborn mule who is offered as much as 5 times the amount of his property but STILL won't move. I bet this happens down in the states as well. After all, this IS North America.
2) Some moron was offered 4 times the price of his house so construction can begin on a large clinic. He refused so many times that the architectural drawings were revised to accomodate the house. NOW he's trying to sell it for 4 times the amount but........

Me: However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.

Omega: No, because it's your labor, and your property.

I'll take that partially back as many people who experience such discrimination don't report it to the HRC. And besides, as I said earlier, the HRC is not the law, nor is it an enforcement agency, it acts on behalf of the complainant to see if discrimination has occurred, etc. etc.

Before you go on, only 5% of cases submitted to the HRC actually go through this process.

The Consitution doesn't guarentee that I have a right to put my feet on my desk. I have my feet on my desk at this very moment, and I doubt anyone will argue that I do not have that right. Look at the ninth ammentment some time.

Your mom will scream at you for poor etiquette. Any Constitutional Challenges there?

Look, Jay, you can call up all the eronius court ruling and laws all you want, and it won't change anything

Historically, the loose interpretations of Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland allowed for a different approach to the 10th Amendment. Since it doesn't say any powers not EXPRESSLY (man I wish I knew how to use italics) delegated to the Federal government is reserved to the states. This interpration reached its most radical form in 1937 in Carter v. Carter Coal Company in which the Supreme Court announced that the 10th Amendment was but a "truism". In other words, the 10th amendment states a rather obvious fact and has no real political power. Recently the 10th Amendment has regained some of its power, particularly under Nixon and Reagan, but it still isn't read as strictly as the pre-1930s. So I guess my question is, just how strictly DO You read the Constitution and the 10th Amendment?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Vancouver,

For italics, use two of the "<" and ">" with an "i" between them at the beginning of the word, then two more with an "/i" when you don't want any more italics. Or, click on "What Is UBB Code" under "Instant UBB Code" ...

---

Hmm.. like this ??

Oh sweet, thanks man.

Hmm. vancouver eh? i like that, maybe i'll change my name to it. I'm getting sick of this USS vanguard crap anyways. maybe it wouldn't seem as dweeby if some of the others kept the old uss names. ah well, i digress. thanks, snay, for the info.

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]