The military's existence? Certainly I dispute it. Certain ACTIONS by the military can be a symptom of authoritarian thinking.

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 don't seem to grasp the concept of a symptom. It means that it's an indicator that authoritarian thinking exists in the government. It doesn't need to have any power in and of itself. The more important symptom is the fact that the courts can actually punish someone for exercizing their innate rights to their property.

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

So you're suggesting that the government SHOULDN'T have the power to kill innocent civilians if it's the only way to prevent more innocent civilians from dying? That's just basic law enforcement logic: in a no-win scenario, you save the most lives possible. Thus the government itself already has the authority to do things like that. It's just that the military is the only entity equipped to handle such a situation.

Amendments to the Constitution place restrictions on discrimination based on public accommodation even for private people.

You want to give me a quote on that ammendment?

It has said, however, that in certain cases of public accommodation, that you can not.

Well, then the court is wrong. Can you not grasp that concept?

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

In my fireplace? On eBay? Heck, no.

The HRC does not enforce decisions on you.

What the HRC does doesn't matter. The courts have the power to interfere with your right to do with what you please with your property, no?

Even with a Conservative or Libertarian government, you have to fill out permits for many things.

Mainly when you're dealing with things that affect other people, ie dumping chemicals in a river. Federal and state governments can't determine what I do with my property that doesn't affect others. Localities may be something else entirely, because they're not restricted by most parts of the federal Constitution, but that's a different topic.

You often claim the 10th to support your anti-federalist views. The 10th Amendment, as I'm sure we're all aware, says that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states. The Elastic Clause however says that the government has the power to pass any laws necessary and proper for it to carry out its powers.

The Elastic Clause allows the government to pass laws necessary to carry out its existing enumerated duties and powers, not to create entirely new powers. There is no conflict.

So I guess my question is, just how strictly DO You read the Constitution and the 10th Amendment?

Anyway, the Court has affirmed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 several times since it became law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

You often claim the 10th to support your anti-federalist views. The 10th Amendment, as I'm sure we're all aware, says that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states. The Elastic Clause however says that the government has the power to pass any laws necessary and proper for it to carry out its powers.

The Elastic Clause allows the government to pass laws necessary to carry out its existing enumerated duties and powers, not to create entirely new powers. There is no conflict.

---

But there often is, the most famous being in McCulloch v Maryland. The problem is that who decides what is necessary and proper, Congress, the people, the states? More often than not, the answer isn't so clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

So I guess my question is, just how strictly DO You read the Constitution and the 10th Amendment?

I read it exactly as it says: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, the government can't do it. There's not much there to interpret.

---

Wow, if it was as easy as that, why do we even HAVE a judicial branch? No offense, but there's a whole shite load of stuff to interpret. We as a people have been doing it since the constitution was drafted. For example, how do we interpret something like the Necessary and Proper Clause. Who says what is necessary and proper? Or how about the 1st Amendment, there are a bunch of different interpretations out there? Or what about the taxing and spending power of Congress?It says it must be for the general welfare. How do you interpret that? Is general welfare directly helping the people as a whole? What if it only helps the unemployed which in turn helps the economy? Sometimes I wish we could simply read the Constitution and find what's right, but unfortunately, like everything else, it's much more complicated.

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

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

Me: Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?

Omega: Right.

Me: Please explain.

So you're suggesting that the government SHOULDN'T have the power to kill innocent civilians if it's the only way to prevent more innocent civilians from dying?

Later down my post, I identified an instance in which no danger to populated areas was not possible. And if the military shoots down the jet, that resembles an authoritarian action.

And I believe that the power to shoot down a civilian jet lies with the Military, and not the President.

Some things I'd like to note: You say Civilian Authority is paramount. That applies to all governmental institutions, AND the HRC. The HRC is comprised of a bunch of civilians appointed by a Lieutenant-Governor (some strange position I really can't define). Authoritarianism dissappears if Civilian Authority dissappears. Even in an Authoritarian government, something like the HRC would not be in existance. There was none during the reigns of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pinochet (NOT a liberal, but a conservative Authoritarian BTW), Milosevic, etc.

Well, then the court is wrong. Can you not grasp that concept?

Omega, you act as if you are above the law.

So Only the constitution is the law, and nothing else matters, right?

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

In my fireplace? On eBay? Heck, no.

You need to have a permit to burn trees in your yard. After all, like you said, provided that it doesn't affect anyone else down the road (and a fire could grow into a bigger one if conditions are ripe for it). You also need a permit to make an addition to your house as you need to secure the necessary water and electrical connections for this addition (unless you're building a shed-like thingy).

Of course, there are plenty of mundane permits, but I won't get into that.

What the HRC does doesn't matter. The courts have the power to interfere with your right to do with what you please with your property, no?

quote:

---

And I believe that the power to shoot down a civilian jet lies with the Military, and not the President.

---

Words "Commander in Chief" ring a bell? The President is always the highest-ranking person in the military. That's why the Joint Chiefs report to him, and why you'd need his authority to launch a nuclear strike. And shooting down a civilian airliner is such a drastic action for the military to take, you'd better believe they'd do it on his authority.

quote:

---

Lieutenant-Governor (some strange position I really can't define).

---

Essentialy the same relationship to Governor as Vice-President is to President.

quote:

---

You need to have a permit to burn trees in your yard. After all, like you said, provided that it doesn't affect anyone else down the road (and a fire could grow into a bigger one if conditions are ripe for it). You also need a permit to make an addition to your house as you need to secure the necessary water and electrical connections for this addition (unless you're building a shed-like thingy).

---

I don't need a permit to burn weeds and such, or garbage, or anything else that's far more likely to burn than trees. You must live in an especially restrictive place.

On the other hand, I have a tiny creek on my property, and I've been warned that if I were to build a small dam / create a small pool for crayfish to live in, the EPA would get me, even though the area affected would total maybe three square yards. STUPID. It's MY three square yards, and without me, NOTHING would be living there. I'm BUILDING a habitat, not destroying one!

Then there was the guy who was fined because the BEAVERS built a dam on his stream. STUPID.

quote:

---

Of course, there are plenty of mundane permits, but I won't get into that.

---

Good idea.. then we could get into all the stupid ramifications of enforcing said mundane permits.

quote:

---

The courts only mediate what they see as a lawsuit from a plaintiff to a defendant.

---

the HRC and similar things create the ability for there to be plaintiffs, legitimate and otherwise (more otherwise, from what I've experienced).

Hence, multizilliondollar lawsuits, hence increased costs, hence increased prices, cut staff, and cut budgets, hence a DECREASE rather than an increase in access and services.

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:

Essentialy the same relationship to Governor as Vice-President is to President.

---

Hmm.. I think I once heard that the Lt. Governor has a lot of power within the state government, unlike the Vice-President which deosn't have much of anything. I'm not sure, can someone check up on this?

[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]

[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]

quote:

---

Then there was the guy who was fined because the BEAVERS built a dam on his stream. STUPID.

---

I would actually like to clarify this point. First of all, it was the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that was a party to this incident, not the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Second, this matter arose because the beaver dams were causing flooding on a neighbor's property. The neighbor found these dams were the problem and complained to the DEQ. The whole story is at Snopes.

quote:

---

Essentialy the same relationship to Governor as Vice-President is to President.

---

1) From what I've been told, the power to shoot down a civilian jet lies within the military. I know what Commander-in-Chief means. I know that only the President can authorize the use of nukes, but I was surprised when people were saying that the authority to shoot down planes was with the highest ranking General, and NOT the President. Remind me to glue my eyes to more CNN.
2) Lieutenant-Governor in our province doesn't have anything to do with vice-Governor or anything like that. First of all, he/she is appointed by the province with the royal assent of the Queen. Secondly, he/she is not a lawmaker, but appoints people to civilian commissions similar to the HRC.
3) I don't need a permit to burn weeds and such, or garbage, or anything else that's far more likely to burn than trees. You must live in an especially restrictive place. Allow me to clarify: if you wish to burn an area larger than one half acre (I think), you need a permit. You DON'T need a permit to burn weeds, wood chips, or anything else. And Certainly, the government won't stop you from creating a pool for your Crayfish. As for a dam, well, I think it depends on the size.
4) Hence, multizilliondollar lawsuits, hence increased costs, hence increased prices, cut staff, and cut budgets, hence a DECREASE rather than an increase in access and services. If you want to use the HRC as a vehicle to sue, then the maximum amount of damages that you can claim is around $10,000 (not including legal fees), maybe even less. And if you want a multizilliondollar lawsuit, then you can do so, WITHOUT the HRC, and their reports stating of whatever discrimination has taken place. In other words, you go from scratch. The HRC was meant as a vehicle to address complaints, and NOT as a vehicle to abuse the court system. I've seen files on this. I've worked there. I know what it's like.

EDIT: forgot to add a bit regarding legal fees.

[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

1) The aircraft in question, after the 11th were civilian aircraft.

2) The president sets military policy. As such, he helps the military set the rules of engagement and an aircraft carrier off of Iraq has different rules than the Air National Guard out of Cleveland Ohio.