It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nope, and every time you make this claim on my behalf it's incorrect. I have claimed that the American system balances individual rights versus collective rights. It is your position that "property is sacrosanct" and therefore you are the one who would have argued for the continuance of slavery, not me.
Wrong again. I want individual rights recognized as they are in the Constitution balanced with the needs of the People.
Wrong again. It is exactly about the rights of property owners to serve who they want, when they want, what they want, etc. Why are you so clearly misrepresenting Jim Crow laws, Doc?
Prove it, don't just spew it. Further, who are you to preach? You think that some folks should have to come in the back door, or have separate water fountains ... if that's what the OWNER OF PROPERTY wants to offer them. Pfft.
Get the board out of your own eye, or better yet, physician, heal thyself.
See, there you go. All you need now is a Rebel flag waving and Dixie playing.
I haven't made any claim that the US Constitution says anything like that, although the Commerce Clause is pretty clear.
Public accommodation laws usually enact at the State or local level, you know where the purview of the States begins?
Here's the thing, Doc. All you're doing here is assigning beliefs to myself and to others that we don't have because that is convenient for your argument. Why muddy the water with all that?
Show, state, demonstrate, elucidate, WHERE personal property is declared to be sacrosanct and untouchable by government through due process of law, please. Show where any Constitution or any other legal document states that a public business can do whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to, to whomever it wants to (or not.)
The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).
* They empowered Congress to protect intellectual property by authorizing copyright and patent laws (I-8-8).
* They granted Congress authority to punish piracy, a crime directed principally against property (I-8-10).
* They denied Congress and the states authority to pass ex post facto laws (I-9-3 and I-10), a ban that some of the Founders thought would protect property.
* When it became clear that the ban on ex post facto laws was not broad enough to protect property, they partially plugged the gap with the Fifth Amendment, which (1) prevented any person from being â€œdeprived of . . . property, without due process of lawâ€ and (2) required compensation when â€œproperty [was] taken for public use.â€
* They added a section (Article I, Section 10) with several provisions protecting financial assets against state governments.
* Similarly, they inserted a section providing that those who had loaned money to the former Confederation Congress would be able to enforce those debts against the new government (V-1).
* They granted the federal courts jurisdiction over interstate land claims and interstate debts to limit the extent to which state courts could discriminate against the property rights of out-of-staters (III-2-1 and III-2-2).
* They added the Full Faith and Credit Clause (IV-1) partly to require state courts to honor property records in other states.
* Most of the Founders opposed slavery, but given the system of the day, they even included provisions that protected â€œpropertyâ€ in slaves (e.g., I-9-1).
* The Constitutionâ€™s Privileges and Immunities Clause (IV-2-1) protected the rights of citizens doing business and owning land in other states (including, by the way, the rights of women and free African-American citizens).
* The Founders gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers). This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private sector.
* The Founders inserted a provision specifically protecting the property of family members of those convicted of treason (III-3-2).
The Original Constitution
Get the New Book Today!
* They adopted the Third Amendment, which largely prevented the government from quartering troops in private homes.
* They adopted the Fourth Amendment, which protected â€œpersons, houses, papers, and effectsâ€ from unreasonable search and seizure.
* They added the Eighth Amendment, which barred excessive fines.
* They also inserted a number of other checks and balances, designed partly to protect minorities from unfair property confiscations.
The Bill of Rights on Private Property
Many people were fearful that the Constitution still concentrated too much power in the hands of the federal government. The electorate in key states insisted upon a “Bill of Rights” lest they would reject the proposed Constitution.
These amendments soon became incorporated into the new Constitution. Six of these ten amendments pertain either directly or indirectly to private property rights.
The Third Amendment states, “No soldier shall in times of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.” This amendment grew out of abuses by the British, who had forced people to allow troops into their homes. The amendment clearly protects the rights of homeowners, but is too specific for wider applications.
The Fourth Amendment includes the clause, “The rights of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . .” The “search and seizure” clause has been interpreted to pertain primarily to criminal cases, but the stated intent of this statement is to make people secure in their persons and possessions. In civil cases law enforcement officials presently are able to seize property without a warrant and place the burden of proof upon the owner to show that he did not commit a crime. In fact, some local governments now use civil seizures to supplement their budgets.
The Seventh Amendment requires that for civil cases in federal courts, “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to common law.” The common law, as we have seen, rests upon three pillars, including private property rights. This indirect recognition of private property only protects individual owners against other private parties. These common law property claims become enforceable against the federal government under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Amendment Nine states, “The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment Ten further stipulates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states and the people.” The original intent of the “enumeration” and the “reservation” clauses clearly reaffirm the contract theory of government held by John Locke and James Madison alike. All “powers not delegated to the federal government” includes any and all private property rights described under the common law. Historically, however, U.S. courts have never used the “reservation” clause to decide important cases.
The most explicit recognition of private property comes in the Fifth Amendment which states “Nor shall [anyone] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” The first clause is called the “due process” clause while the second part is referred to as the “takings” clause.
Until the middle of the twentieth century, the “due process” clause was often used to strike down regulations imposed on private property especially if they amounted to confiscation by regulation or if they exceeded the federal government’s constitutionally delegated authority. For example, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act required all trades and businesses to form trade associations, restrict entry, and establish minimum wages and prices, the Supreme Court overturned this wholesale reorganization of U.S. industry as a violation of the “due process” clause. This prompted President Roosevelt to threaten to “pack” the Supreme Court. Although Roosevelt failed to gain congressional approval to expand the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members, the Court no longer overturned New Deal policies. Subsequently, Courts have created an artificial distinction between “property liberties” and “personal liberties.” Rarely, do Courts use the “due process” clause to uphold “property liberties” anymore. Current judicial theorists argue that the Constitution does not prescribe a particular economic system (capitalism). Therefore, private property liberties are not protected while “personal liberties” such as First Amendment guarantees of free speech are still upheld under the “due process” clause.
The “takings” clause requires all levels of government to justly compensate owners for property taken for public use. Whenever land is condemned or taken for highway construction, military bases, and so forth, courts must estimate the fair value of the property to be paid to the owners. The “takings” clause also requires governments to compensate owners when confiscatory taxes are imposed or regulatory acts render property worthless.
Read more: www.fee.org...
Prove YOUR claim for a change. Leave all the personal attacks out of it.
I choose to believe we still have a feudal system, just different names in the hierarchy.
If I were an American I would just draw a line through the middle and call the south Racistbigotland, and be done with it. Why waste any more time and energy on these fools? You want to progress? You want peace? It won't happen as long as you allow backward politicians to have any kind of 'power'.
reply to post by dragonridr
"The government grants right of access to the public was this right in the constitution? "
I think the poster was implying that it is because the person opened their property to serve the public
Who served whom in who's restaurant was a minor part of Jim Crow.
Ask yourself, who profits from these images of Appalachia? The same people who profit from the physical destruction of Appalachia. Answer this question and you have your perpetrator. It’s the strip mine owners, the coal plant owners, the nuclear power industry, the nuclear weapons industry—simply put, those who pollute and destroy our land and profit from that destruction the most. We are portrayed as stupid, ignorant, inbred in order to make it acceptable to turn streams bright orange and to blow up entire mountains and destroy highland watersheds forever. We are naive so of course companies and at times the federal government have seized whole Appalachia towns. We don’t know how to take care of our land, mountains, coal, watersheds and resources, of course its great for the corporate carpetbagging out of state corporations to come and exploit us. One, of several examples, of this destruction of Appalachia for the benefit of the rest of the nation is the Kanawha valley in West Virginia. The Kanawha valley in West Virginia is the chemical production center for Union Carbide, DuPont, FMC and other chemical corporations. A local high school there is called “Nitro” high school. The industry located in that valley to contain their waste. The Appalachians are Americas toxic dumping ground.
reply to post by NavyDoc
What does an independent contractor do but offer a good and or service? They would be and are in the same boat.
Independent Contractors do not fall under Public Accommodations Laws.
So you are for racial discrimination, or discrimination based on race.
Really? Nothing I said can be construed as such. Only in the mind of a person who wants everyone to be guilty of discrimination so that they can turn around and point a finger and say: "See? So and so did it!"
For an "anarchist" you sure seem to like government involvement and regulation.
I think it's rather sad that because too many people are completely incapable of participating in a true free market, that people have to appeal to authority to stop it. A true free market automatically wouldn't discriminate against anyone for any reason. A true free market in this regard is exactly as the US Law states: Services and Goods offered to the public must be offered to the whole public. People choosing to operate businesses would put on their adult pants and realize that means sometimes having to do business with people you don't agree with. I think it's whiny and rather immature for people to do business any other way.
reply to post by Cuervo
How did I imply that? You were making a point that those businesses are also supported by Christians and I was pointing out that those Christians aren't barred from going to any of those businesses.
Yeah well I am thinking back to my tobacco threads, and it was all fine and dandy to 'discriminate' against smokers.
And that private business 'decision' was defended, then I read this thread.
And all I see is cognitive dissonance.
injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere
An English translation of Niemöller's speech for the Confessing Church in Frankfurt on 6 January 1946 is as follows: When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?" Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public.
reply to post by Cuervo
the very definition and purpose of marriage is encouraging procreation in a stable home environment. gay couples marrying doesn't even have a purpose.
reply to post by Cuervo
It's not like gay people would eat at those restaurants anyways.
Maybe you should spend less time being an authoritarian and forcing your views on everyone and more time worrying about the criminals in Washington who are allowing privately owned offshore mega-banks to steal from our country and militarize our police.
There literally could not be anything less important than this going on.
reply to post by NavyDoc
I'm tiring of the semantic ping-pong match you want to have Doc: A few final things and then I'm considering your points justly dismissed on numerous occasions by me in this discussion.
I have said that the American system of government is based on balancing the rights of the individual and the rights of the People at large. YOU have continually misrepresented what I've said to fit your own argument. YOU are being utterly dishonest.
You believe in "absolute property rights." As such YOU would support slavery and Jim Crow, which both depended on the sanctity of "property." Your continuing assertion that I am doing that or would believe that or "would have had done so" is just ludicrous.
You think that if you continually restate the arguments of others and ignore the facts they present and misrepresent your own position long enough that the other party in the discussion will just give up. To say that your style is disingenuous in terms of real debate or even polite discussion would be the understatement of 2014 so far.
I have stated continuously the same basic principle throughout: here it is again for your reference. The American system of government and jurisprudence was conceived as a balance between the will (and rights) of the individual and the will (and rights of) the People, the body politic, the essential collective quality of all American citizens considered as a Whole, E Pluribus Unum, ETC ETC ETC.
Your constant and rabid denials of the facts, the pathetic sophomoric "debate" tactics you use, belie your true intent.
Keep repeating your misguided opinions about what I say, mean, think, believe, and say repeatedly. I will keep correcting you.
Who served whom in who's restaurant was a minor part of Jim Crow.
I'm sure that IS minor to you, because you believe that owners of restaurants, trains, inns, theaters, buses, etc. should be able to do whatever they wanted however they wanted because, after all, the property is THEIRS and they have ULTIMATE RIGHTS.
The STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS in the South under the pretense of States Rights (Amendment X) are the source of "preventing African Americans from participating in the electoral process, voting, owning businesses (you know, those very businesses you want the government to control) [LIE -G66], owning property (you know, the very stuff you disregard--blacks wanted to own that and decide what to do with that and aspired to have it but the law kept them from doing that) [ANOTHER LIE -G66]."
I will always agree that without a strong central government that the States will dissolve into tiny satrapies where the worst examples of the human condition ... greed, hatred, discrimination, lynching and such will prevail. The FEDERAL Government put The Civil Rights Act of 1875 in place to try to avoid the next 82 years of Jim Crow segregation, but of course, that was ignored by those that believe that they are a law unto themselves, that they can do whatever they want on THEIR PROPERTY.
Stop with the endless cavalcade of strawmen and fallacious arguments. If you want to state what I have said or what I believe or what I think then QUOTE WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in your posts.
Your style is quite obvious and you're merely blowing a peculiarly noxious brand of hot air.
I want to request that you have some basic dignity and stop the foolishness.
not only incorrect but asinine.
Are you certain that it is ME that needs the history lesson?
Well, as you don't seem to understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, I think I'll take my historical advice elsewhere, if you don't mind.
Your sentences barely make sense.
is asinine in the extreme,
Then I would say to the "posting persona" that you're presenting, that's living in fantasy land that has never existed outside a Ayn Rand novel
Mindlessly chanting the buzzwords common to the right-wing media only points, in my opinion, to a lack of original thought.