- Oct 11, 2007
- 69,284
- 34,927
- Thread starter
- #321
Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.
If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.
We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.
But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.
So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)
So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.
The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.
Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.
This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.
So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.
Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.
Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.
The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.
Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.
I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.