Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[SpidermanTuba]

JB wrote:

SCOTUS is unconstitutional and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

This is beyond stupid. This is psychodelically stupid, JB, even for you. Whichever one of your personalities was in charge when this was written should be cut off from the 'net for a week and made to write:

I am a US citizen and the US Constitution applies to me too." 1,001 times before returning.

Texas v. White declared that Americans have no right to self-determination, spit in the face of Jefferson, and effectively declared the American War for Independence invalid and revoked the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America

No it didn't fool.

 

[JBeukema]

According to who?

According to the Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


​

do try to keep up

I think you maybe forget to read the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.

Show me where the Constitution says the member States surrender the right to self-determination. The SC only applies to member States. A State that leaves the union is no longer bound to the rulings of the common government of the Union, just as it is no longer entitled to its protection or aid.

 

[JBeukema]

No it didn't fool.

Really?

So SCOTUS ruled that secession was a right of the member States?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

According to who?

According to the Constitution

Where in the Constitution does it say the SCOTUS rulings and current workings are directly in opposition to the Constitution? I don't see that part.

Show me where the Constitution says the member States surrender the right to self-determination.

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.

The sovereignty of the United States is superior to the sovereignty of the individual states -they can't just drop out without permission from Congress.

A State that leaves the union is no longer bound to the rulings of the common government of the Union, just as it is no longer entitled to its protection or aid.

When a state becomes a state it surrenders its status as primary sovereign over its citizens.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No it didn't fool.

Really?

So SCOTUS ruled that secession was a right of the member States?

You can't even keep up with your own conversation.

 

[manifold]

The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner and violate someone else's civil rights.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

The liberty to take your business elsewhere.

 

[JBeukema]

Where in the Constitution does it say the SCOTUS rulings and current workings are directly in opposition to the Constitution? I don't see that part.

I'm amazed by how determined you are to be retarded.

Texas v. White is an unconstitutional ruling per the 10th Amendment

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.

And what does that Constitution and that Law say?

Oh yeah, it says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

[/quote]The sovereignty of the United States is superior to the sovereignty of the individual states -they can't just drop out without permission from Congress.[/quote]

Do tell where it says COngress ahs to approve the States' self-determination. All it says is that COngres must approve a State's admission into the union, the breaking of a single member STate into two or more member States, or the union of two or more member States into a single member State

A State that leaves the union is no longer bound to the rulings of the common government of the Union, just as it is no longer entitled to its protection or aid.

When a state becomes a state it surrenders its status as primary sovereign over its citizens.

[/QUOTE]

Only in the select few areas outlined in the Constitution.

Again, see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments

 

[JBeukema]

No it didn't fool.

Really?

So SCOTUS ruled that secession was a right of the member States?

You can't even keep up with your own conversation.

Why do you evade?

You claimed that SCOTUS said a State can leave.

 

[Ravi]

How amusing...there is no self-determination if their is slavery you flipping idiot.

 

[JBeukema]

How amusing...there is no self-determination if their is slavery you flipping idiot.

You might have had a point if the North had fought a war to end slavery- or if Lincoln had at least issued an Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the Union.

But they didn't and he didn't and there were slave states in the Union fighting against the CSA during the Confederate War for Independence- so you just look like an idiot. I guess that's par for the course with you, though.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm amazed by how determined you are to be retarded.

Texas v. White is an unconstitutional ruling per the 10th Amendment

According to YOU

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

The right to determine statehood is a right granted to Congress and the states concurrently - no state may be admitted, or split into smaller states - without approval of the state and of Congress.

Do tell where it says COngress ahs to approve the States' self-determination. All it says is that COngres must approve a State's admission into the union, the breaking of a single member STate into two or more member States, or the union of two or more member States into a single member State

Its not a supreme union if a state can just drop out as it pleases.

 

[manifold]

I have to agree with JB on this side debate.

And not only is he right, he's kick'n all your asses doing it.

Just sayin...

 

[JBeukema]

I'm amazed by how determined you are to be retarded.

Texas v. White is an unconstitutional ruling per the 10th Amendment

According to YOU

Nope. According to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Now show me where in the Constitution the power to dissolve their ties with the other member States and the common governance (Fed) is denied to the States. WHat article? What paragraph? What Amendment?


​

The right to determine statehood is a right granted to Congress

Admission is granted by Congress, and also permission to redraw the border. Show me where the Constitution says that Congress must approve a State's decision to leave the Union altogether.
​

and the states concurrently - no state may be admitted, or split into smaller states - without approval of the state and of Congress.

Yep. Notice what it says:
Admission
Merging
Splitting into multiple member States


Notice what it does not say:
Leaving altogether
​

Do tell where it says Congress has to approve the States' self-determination. All it says is that Congress must approve a State's admission into the union, the breaking of a single member State into two or more member States, or the union of two or more member States into a single member State

Its not a supreme union if a state can just drop out as it pleases.[/quote]


I'm sorry, I missed where yo showed mere it says Congress has to approve the States' self-determination.Where does it say they're not allowed to leave? Let alone the fact that this nation was founded on the right to leave a government with which you disagree and govern yourself, and Jefferson's personal words, where in the Constitution does it say that a member State is denied to power to break its ties with the Union?

It doesn't say that. Hence, they do, because it DOES say this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Show me where in the Constitution the power to leave the Union is prohibited to the States or the power to release a member State from the Union is given to the United States [the central or common government of the Union]
​

WikipediaWictionaryChambers (UK)Google imagesGoogle defineThe Free DictionaryJoin exampleWordNetGoogleUrban DictionaryAnswers.comrhymezone.comMerriam-Webster<>0

wvcidfjoguarm

 

[JBeukema]

For the record, I'm not saying SCOTUS was wrong. I'm saying that the Constitution is right when the question is what the Constitution says.

It's the Constitution that says SCOTUS was wrong.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm amazed by how determined you are to be retarded.

Texas v. White is an unconstitutional ruling per the 10th Amendment

According to YOU

Nope. According to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Now show me where in the Constitution the power to dissolve their ties with the other member States and the common governance (Fed) is denied to the States. WHat article? What paragraph? What Amendment?
​

Its implied by the very definition of what a sovereign nation is. A nation with member states that can just withdraw at will is not a nation.

Admission is granted by Congress, and also permission to redraw the border. Show me where the Constitution says that Congress must approve a State's decision to leave the Union altogether.
​

Withdrawing from the union is a redrawing of a border.


You also point blank ignore the fact that almost all states were actually territorial possessions or part of another state of the United States before they became states. The original 13 colonies are exceptions, and Texas comes to mind as well, but in general, most states were territorial possessions or parts of other states.


(Texas, BTW, also has the distinction of being allowed to split into up to five separate states at any time it wishes. The consent by Congress for this was given in the bill which made Texas a state.)

By your logic - a territorial posession of the U.S. could gain complete independence by becoming a state and then promptly withdrawing. How absurd is that? I guess all the folks in Puerto Rico who want independence from the U.S. should be pushing for statehood, because according to you they can just quit after that.

By your logic, Maryland and Viriginia could effectively shut off all land transport to our nation's capital by declaring their independence and prohibiting travel through to D.C. You think the Founder's intended that?

Where does it say they're not allowed to leave?

Even if they could leave - where would they go? They're sitting on U.S. sovereign territory.​

 

[JBeukema]

Its implied by the very definition of what a sovereign nation is. A nation with member states that can just withdraw at will is not a nation.

The States' sovereignty is not absolute, but neither is their surrender of it. Notice that it speaks of the States (plural) and their rights and powers. The States are semi-antonymous. The USA is no different than the UN, save that the rulings of the central authority are are more binding (the difference between a confederation and a federation) so long as they fall within the specif areas in which the Fed is given supremacy.

Again, the 9th and 10th amendments. Show me where it says 'No State may dissolve its ties with the other States, or shall any State be permitted the Union, without the approval of Congress'.

I don't see those words or anything that says the same in the Constitution. That means, per the 10 Amendment, that the power to dissolve ties lies with the States themselves or with the People.

That's what the Constitution says in plain English in black ink. You can't weasel your way around what the Constitution could not make any clearer.

Admission is granted by Congress, and also permission to redraw the border. Show me where the Constitution says that Congress must approve a State's decision to leave the Union altogether.
​

Withdrawing from the union is a redrawing of a border.

It is not redrawing the border of any State. It says merging or splitting and forming a greater or lesser number of Member States. It says nothing of leaving altogether.

Careful you don't tear a ligament with that stretch.

You also point blank ignore the fact that almost all states were actually territorial possessions or part of another state of the United States before they became states. The original 13 colonies are exceptions, and Texas comes to mind as well, but in general, most states were territorial possessions or parts of other states.

Which is of zero relevance. They applied for Statehood. Some were admitted and some were not.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061431389/?tag=borders-detail-20]Amazon.com: How the States Got Their Shapes (9780061431388): Mark Stein: Books[/ame]

Now do try to stay on topic. Show me where the Constitution says a State is not permitted to leave the Union.

By your logic - a territorial posession of the U.S. could gain complete independence by becoming a state and then promptly withdrawing. How absurd is that?

They'd not have to become a State at all. You don't seem to grasp the concept of self-determination. I suggest reading a history book about the colonies and the American War for Independence. Come back when you grasp the subject.

I guess all the folks in Puerto Rico who want independence from the U.S. should be pushing for statehood, because according to you they can just quit after that.

Why would they have to become a State first? It's as if you're striving to make the most moronic assertions you can think of.

By your logic, Maryland and Viriginia could effectively shut off all land transport to our nation's capital by declaring their independence and prohibiting travel through to D.C.You think the Founder's intended that?

If they thought the Union no longer served their interests? Yes. In fact, Jefferson would have been perhaps the loudest voice of all, ready to fire upon any Union soldiers or national Guard who attempted to force them to submit to rule by a government/nation they wanted no part of. His bloody tree of liberty and all that.

You're saying that we had no right to declare our independence from Britain- let alone anyone who lives near the seat of British power and whose independence might have inconvenienced the King.


The FF would have covered you in tar and hanged you from a tree- so you might not want to invoke their name when arguing that Americans have no right to self-determination.

 

[JBeukema]

Even if they could leave - where would they go? They're sitting on U.S. sovereign territory.

Where did we go when we kicked the King to the curb? We were sitting on the soverign territory of the British Empire and the King himself.

You people already argued this case, Tory. Since you want to bring the FF into this, you might want to look into how they handled Tories.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Its implied by the very definition of what a sovereign nation is. A nation with member states that can just withdraw at will is not a nation.

The States' sovereignty is not absolute, but neither is their surrender of it. Notice that it speaks of the States (plural) and their rights and powers. The States are semi-antonymous. The USA is no different than the UN, save that the rulings of the central authority are are more binding (the difference between a confederation and a federation) so long as they fall within the specif areas in which the Fed is given supremacy.

Again, the 9th and 10th amendments. Show me where it says 'No State may dissolve its ties with the other States, or shall any State be permitted the Union, without the approval of Congress'.

I don't see those words or anything that says the same in the Constitution. That means, per the 10 Amendment, that the power to dissolve ties lies with the States themselves or with the People.

That's what the Constitution says in plain English in black ink. You can't weasel your way around what the Constitution could not make any clearer.

Withdrawing from the union is a redrawing of a border.

It is not redrawing the border of any State. It says merging or splitting and forming a greater or lesser number of Member States. It says nothing of leaving altogether.

Careful you don't tear a ligament with that stretch.



Which is of zero relevance. They applied for Statehood. Some were admitted and some were not.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061431389/?tag=borders-detail-20]Amazon.com: How the States Got Their Shapes (9780061431388): Mark Stein: Books[/ame]

Now do try to stay on topic. Show me where the Constitution says a State is not permitted to leave the Union.


They'd not have to become a State at all. You don't seem to grasp the concept of self-determination. I suggest reading a history book about the colonies and the American War for Independence. Come back when you grasp the subject.

I guess all the folks in Puerto Rico who want independence from the U.S. should be pushing for statehood, because according to you they can just quit after that.

Why would they have to become a State first? It's as if you're striving to make the most moronic assertions you can think of.

By your logic, Maryland and Viriginia could effectively shut off all land transport to our nation's capital by declaring their independence and prohibiting travel through to D.C.You think the Founder's intended that?

If they thought the Union no longer served their interests? Yes. In fact, Jefferson would have been perhaps the loudest voice of all, ready to fire upon any Union soldiers or national Guard who attempted to force them to submit to rule by a government/nation they wanted no part of. His bloody tree of liberty and all that.

You're saying that we had no right to declare our independence from Britain- let alone anyone who lives near the seat of British power and whose independence might have inconvenienced the King.


The FF would have covered you in tar and hanged you from a tree- so you might not want to invoke their name when arguing that Americans have no right to self-determination.

LOL! So now you're suggesting that not only states, but territorial possessions of the United States can just opt out at any damn time they please! That's fucking BRILLIANT. Do you even understand the term "territorial possession"? If I own a rent house the tenants can't just declare themselves the owners of it any time they want shit for brains.

 

[JBeukema]

Do you even understand the term "territorial possession"?

Yeah, it's what the King claimed we were.

And if those tenants want to declare themselves sovereign, then they have to leave the United States in order to break a contract enforced by a member State (a rental agreement) and evade abiding by that State's laws. They can try that, but when they attempt to take the owner's property, that owner will call upon those with whom he in in social contract and the Police will arrive. They will either starve them out or take it by force. Either way, the tenants have a right to attempt to take on the State and the Fed, as ill-advised as that would be. Of course, they'll then be tried and punished after capture for the crimes (theft, for example) they've committed against the owner in the eyes of those with whom he has such social contract (the State)

The Constitution clearly states via the 10th amendment that the States have a right to secede.


In Texas V White, there was a case to be made for the Union's actions, but the Union didn't make that case just as it didn't fight the just war that there was to be waged against slavery and those attacking Ran Paul aren't making the case that there is to be made about restricting a shopkeeper's right to do business with whom he pleases as the lesser and necessary evil when attempting to disassemble a system of oppression that subjugated and dehumanized an entire race.

Instead they spit upon the Constitution and the 10th Amendment to it and argue that there is no right to self-determination- arguin, in the process, that we still rightfully belong to the British.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Do you even understand the term "territorial possession"?

Yeah, it's what the King claimed we were.

And if those tenants want to declare themselves sovereign, then they have to leave the United States in order to break a contract enforced by a member State (a rental agreement) and evade abiding by that State's laws. They can try that, but when they attempt to take the owner's property, that owner will call upon those with whom he in in social contract and the Police will arrive. They will either starve them out or take it by force. Either way, the tenants have a right to attempt to take on the State and the Fed, as ill-advised as that would be. Of course, they'll then be tried and punished after capture for the crimes (theft, for example) they've committed against the owner in the eyes of those with whom he has such social contract (the State)

The Constitution clearly states via the 10th amendment that the States have a right to secede.

No it doesn't. You're fucking insane. You should secede yourself and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.