How Do You Feel About Bans on Private Discrimination Now?
The New York Times reports that "a Supreme Court decision forbidding the use of race in admission at public universities would almost certainly mean that it would be barred at most private ones as well under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in programs that receive federal money." Here is another reason that progressives should not be so quick to dismiss the libertarian distinction between public and private discrimination. Two years ago Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who was then running for the Senate seat he now occupies, was pilloried for questioning the federal ban on private racial discrimination in places of "public accommodation," on the assumption that anyone making such an argument must be either a naive ideologue or a closet racist. But the same property rights, freedom of association, and freedom of contract that allow bigoted businessmen to shun blacks make it possible for unpopular minorities to make a living, get ahead, and establish their own spheres of autonomy. These rights also would allow private institutions to pursue whatever race-conscious remedies they deemed appropriate in response to the lingering effects of slavery and institutionalized racism, no matter what the Supreme Court said.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I hope a bunch of lefties stumble in here to gloriously miss the point. It'll be DELICIOUS.
Why would they bother coming here when there is already an entire comment thread chock full of retard at the linked NYT article?
i came here to enjoy warty wrapping his head in foil topped w a cute propeller.
like my itinerant crushes on hot trailer trash, I find myself smiling every time orrin shows up now.
keep up the good work, little trooper.
Isn't he adorable? I picture him as being four foot eleven and bugeyed and pigeon toed. Poor little buddy.
So do I. Now, anyway.
Bi-curious? -Datebi*cO'Mis designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.
Nope, no positive racial changes can come without government help. That's the progressive view on it. If there are problems, they'll just want more rules to make exceptions (after review by a government-appointed commission, natch) instead of removing controls.
The progressive view of the world is frozen in 1962. Think about it. Every President is the new Kennedy. Every issue is analogous to the civil rights struggle. America, and especially the South, is forever battling its racial demons. Every problem a reason for a new government crusade modeled on the great society. Schools are always struggling. Black people and gays forever not accepted by society and so forth.
To progressives it is as if the 1970s failures of the welfare state and the 1980s collapse of communism and central planning never happened.
Like when the Leftists wanted Black people to be armed?
Shorter John - I'm an old white guy.
Shorter Orin. I am too ashamed to admit the truth so I just call people names.
To paraphrase myself: to a liberal, every day is Selma, 1964.
Wasn't that where Obama said he was conceived?
Let me be clear: even though I'm 50, Selma got me born!
Forgive us for not taking white conservatives' word for it that minorities' struggles have all been acceptably resolved.
Particularly not some idiot who thinks communism and a national government are the same thing.
Some of my best friends are black. They're doing just fine. Thanks, once again, for your (fake) concern.
Tony you are so stupid I feel sorry for you. Name one new idea liberals have had in the last 70 years? And again, the total liberal crack up in the 1970s, the failure of welfare, the explosion in crime, the death of our big cities, are just ignored by liberals. Detroit was the most liberal city in America in the second half of the 20th Century. In in 1950, it was the second wealthiest in the country. In 2000, it was the second poorest.
Liberals pretend it is 1962 because to do otherwise is to face the truth about what failures they have been.
Equal rights for gays.
You really want to get into a pissing match over whether conservative or liberal areas of the country are prospering more? Why are blue states almost universally more successful on every social metric than red states?
And new ideas are important? So what new ideas have conservatives had? Perhaps they found another useful government program that they want to gut and give the loot to their corporate buddies?
The most prosperity this country (and the human species) ever saw was under the strongest liberal government we've had, in the post-WWII era. Since the 1970s we've been moving away from that and toward the Reagan cult, with predictable disastrous results, including a financial meltdown, massive oil spill, crumbling infrastructure, and wars managed about as well as to be expected considering the simians in charge who believe that crap.
Move to Utah and see how much freedom you have.
People in red states give more to charity. Isn't that a social metric?
Because there were no financial meltdowns, massive oil spills, crumbling roads, or badly managed wars before Reagan.
The Great Depression never happened, nor did the Great Recession in the mid 70s. IXTOC never happened even though it was the biggest oil spill ever (and before Reagan). Roads were built of indestructimum before that pesky Reagan was president.
Tony, you couldn't be any more a tool. You're the very definition of a useful idiot.
Universal healthcare is certainly not a new idea, but it has never been achieved, principally because of corporate opposition. In general the liberal project is never finished and always open to new ideas. Specifically, we've yet even to achieve all of FDR's goals. Long way to go.
It has been achieved all over Europe. You know the Europe that is going bankrupt?
The coming demographic collapse and bankruptcy of Europe will be another thing liberals will ignore. Better to stay in nice safe 1962 land.
Out here in reality every single progressive program has ended in poverty, bankruptcy and disaster.
You're an empty-headed GOP talking points spewing robot. Europe's problems have nothing to do with the existence of safety net programs, and they'd have even bigger problems without them. Your problem is that you think a country's fiscal situation is more important to worry about than whether people are going hungry or without healthcare. Actually, it's not, because you don't think deeply enough to concern yourself with such questions. Whatever Hannity tells you to say is what you say, belief and thinking have nothing to do with it.
you think a country's fiscal situation is more important to worry about than whether people are going hungry or without healthcare
Because food and healthcare are free right?
"Europe's problems have nothing to do with the existence of safety net programs"
So.... soaring health care costs due to socialized medicine and soaring unemployment and welfare costs due to a welfare state have nothing to due with Europe's financial problems???
WTF???
Universal heathcare is racist. Minorities pay in to a program that treats expensive and/or rediculous white people diseases (like CF, alzheimer's, ADD, ED) and does very little for incurable minority diseases (like diabetes, sickle cell anemia)
Last I looked white people got diabetes and anemia too. And black people get Alzheimer's.
Tony|2.22.12 @ 12:35PM|#"
Universal healthcare is certainly not a new idea, but it has never been achieved, principally because of corporate opposition."
No, shithead, it hasn't been achieved since no government can afford it.
Nope, no positive racial changes can come without government help. That's the progressive view on it. If there are problems, they'll just want more rules to make exceptions (after review by a government-appointed commission, natch) instead of removing controls.
Which is ironic because most of the discrimination engaged in by citizens was backed by the state, and in some places, the federal government.
Remember when St. Woodrow re-segregated the Executive Branch?
Yup. You couldn't integrate in the South if you wanted to, it was against the law. And the fact that the South integrated so quickly after the feds forced them to repeal the laws, tells me that a majority of the people didn't agree with it and those laws were the result of a fanatical bullying minority using the state to enforce their sick vision of the world.
Shorter Jacob:
Me today, you tomorrow.
It's almost like there's a set of Iron Laws? about such things...:)
The only truly "private" college I know of (there may be others) is Hillsdale College in MI. They take NO federal $. I went to an ostensibly private college - up their eyeballs with fed $$. Guess who calls the tune?
Same thing with companies that are "federal contractors" - like mine. Subject to AAP/EEO/etc as a result. If I'm NOT a "federal contractor"....why should my company or I be subject to those laws, eh?
Oh, we shouldn't. But only a racist like Rand Paul (or his dad, the REAL racist) would believe that, right?
Oh that the world were filled with more Thomas Sowells and Walter Williams, and fewer Barack Obamas and Wise Latinas....
The only truly "private" college I know of (there may be others) is Hillsdale College in MI
Also true of Grove City College (in Western PA), last I was aware.
There is no such thing as private discrimination? Just because it doesn't had a direct consequence to your life doesn't mean it is a chimera
Well said. I get discriminated against all the time.
then you must be female
Feel lucky that you are not a chupacabras.
I doesn't had English classes at skool.
"There is no such thing as private discrimination?"
No one here is arguing that private discrimination does not exist. Simply that it should not be illegal. Suppose a theater company were performing Othello and an albino demanded to play the part of Othello. Should the theater company be allowed to say no?
If the albino is a qualified actor then they should be given the part and put black Kiwi on their face or something and no one will notice.
Given the history surrounding your proposal, I do not think this is a position that most African Americans today would take if confronted with this question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface
Everyone knows that discrimination laws are not meant for Caucasians anyway.
Albinos have had their own cross to bear in Africa but considering that Shakespeare used males for most of his female characters, actors have a tradition of unconventional
Sure, and for ARTISTIC reasons they sometimes still do. West Side Story is a very good example of an unconventional interpretation of a Shakespeare play. But my question is different, should an acting troupe that for artistic reasons WANTS a person of African heritage to play Othello have the RIGHT to discriminate in this case?
I want to write about your question; it requires thought
I totally nailed the issue at hand!
No one is claiming that private discrimination doesn't exist.
But many libertarians hold that it is a ok for the government to put stings on government money. That certainly seems to be the libertarian defense of the contraception mandate. Don't like it don't take federal money.
Schools receive millions in federal money. So, if you are going to enforce a public private distinction here, it would seem you would also have to give up on the idea that federal money can come with strings.
I think the "you take the money, you take the conditions" argument is silly. The federal government is not a private party. They should not be able to subvert the bill of rights by bribing people or private institutions into doing things that would violate the constitution. Sure they can put strings on it. But one of those stings shouldn't be "take this money and then go discriminate."
The Fed. Govt. has long been using the strings of funding to get its way in states. This is nothing new.
Yes they have. And it should be unconstitutional. They are using money to get around the limits on federal power.
Meh, it's not really unconstitutional. It's still the state's decision.
For example, South Carolina said "fuck you" to the Fed. Govt. for highway funds, because they didn't want to set up a vehicle state inspection program.
But they still have to pay the feds...
The argument is backwards. None of these schools should be receiving federal money.
I don't have a problem with federal money going to universities. There is a lot more to federal support to universities than pumping up the higher education bubble. I think supporting research in universities is a perfectly appropriate use of federal funds.
Want to give me the specific constitutional justification?
I just ran down the Article 1, Section 8 list and none apply.
The preamble. The whole purpose of the document is to promote the general welfare. That and the tax and spend power.
*facepalm*
Thanks for justifying Obamacare, John.
John is a modern liberal, that answer verifies it.
Madison says you are wrong about the preamble.
Do I need to quote him at you?
No kidding.
No I didn't. Spending money is different than the coercive police power. We have only had this discussion a hundred times.
And again. start strictly construing the 1st Amendment and then come talk to me about the rest of the document.
I am strictly constructing the 1st. So strictly that Ive banned all marriage laws. You said I was insane.
Rob,
There are no federal marriage laws and there shouldn't be.
How can it be any different? The money that the government spends is always at someone else's involuntary expense.
14th amendment extends the 1st amendment to the states.
It still says "Congress shall..."
How in the hell can anyone cite the Preamble as as a basis for a law and still claim there is any limit at all to federal power?
You can't. John really stepped in it here.
Of course you can. It is called spending power versus police power. It is a distinction older than the Constitution. You guys just don't like it.
Fine - then under the spending power, the Congress can tax anybody who does not have an approved health insurance plan.
They have the tax power and they can probably do that. they can also tax people who get certain kinds of income or engage in some activities but not others. The taxing power has always been broad.
You guys argue for a vision of the Constitution that never existed. And if it ever did, it certainly ended the day Jefferson purchased Louisiana. Where was the power to do that?
When Brutus made your argument, John, Madison implied he was an idiot who couldn't read English:
Quote heavily ellipsised in order to make it past the 900 character filter.
Thanks squirrels. I give you the PResident Scroob Salute.
Again Rob, see the Louisiana purchase. You are fighting a fight that was lost in 1805. Give it up. And Madison isn't a god like authority. And you are misreading him anyway. He is talking about police power not building shit.
He is SPECIFICALLY talking about building shit, as I pointed out with his public works veto.
Louisiana purchase
Treaty power.
You are getting destroyed today.
Only in your mind Rob.
Mine, too!
John,
I think you are wrong about the constitutionality, but right that the fight is lost.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were blatantly unconstitutional, yet they were enforced.
At this point, the U.S. Constitution is but a speedbump. 9 men could look at the Constitution and decree that black men couldn't be U.S. citizens and everyone acts as if it's the case.
In certain areas, the 9 men look at the constitution, ignore its plainlanguage, and make a ruling that says, in effect, "Fuck You, that's why"
I wouldn't put the spending power on the level of the alien and sedition acts. And it is a cop out argument by libertarians anyway. Just because the Constitution says the feds can do it doesn't mean they should.
If you think federal funds going to universities is a bad idea, say way. Screaming "that is not in the Constitution" using a 200 year old losing argument is not very convincing. And it implies that you really don't know why it is a bad idea. And libertarians should make better arguments than that.
Libertarians make both arguments.
But "taxation is theft, even though it is constitutional" arguments get laughed at.
Even though we are right.
"What the government gives, it must first take away."
Taxation is theft. Governemnt can only spend money it steals. Any "spending power" comes at the threat of force and is therefore invalid. Who cares what the Constitution says?
"It's not in the Constitution" around here it is pretty well understood to mean that what is being discussed is at odds with the written Constitution which is a rather tightly written blueprint for a government of limited powers. If it's not listed, it's not listed.
Dude, I already did, that's so 47 seconds ago.
Government Funding of Science: Inherently Susceptible to Junk and Superstition.
The preamble is a statement of intent, not a blanket authorization for the feds to do whatever sounds good to them.
But, thanks for playing!
Now, please go away.
The preamble. The whole purpose of the document is to promote the general welfare. That and the tax and spend power.
Come on John, the 10th amendment clearly supersedes "promoting general welfare" in this area. Nowhere in the constitution is education ever mentioned.
Furthermore, I'd say there's a good argument for the intent of the general welfare clause as it relates to national defense.
Wow. Just wow. Go find another site to hang out at, John. This one is not for you.
Why does being a Libertarian mean you have to have some archaic view of the Constitution? One question, how to read the Constitution, has nothing to do with the other, whether something is a good idea.
Just because the government can do something doesn't mean it has to. They are two separate issues.
The worst blog comments are the ones that tell non-troll, rational commenters to go away and not comment anymore. I used to see it all the time at places like Think Progress and Crooks and Liars. It just makes you look like a child.
The problem with "general welfare" is that it can mean too many different things.
The constitution is vague on purpose. Those privileged land owners knew what they were doing.
You forgot to change your handle back to MNG.
"I don't have a problem with federal money going to universities" -Even I do
Drug companies are notorious for purchasing the research and making money of the public's investment
Rather, I am going to subpoena reason to get the IP address of whoever is putting up the shit about me. And whoever it is, I am going to sue them and go after them under the stalking statutes.
Whoever that is, is going to regret ever doing this shit. So if you happen to know who that is, you might want to tell them to stop.
Holy Shit! John is Arthur Alan Wolk!?
A. I don't know
B. So you really want me to research all the times you told me I should not care if it is true?
C. I hope you were never foolish enough to spoof anyone
D. Stalking does not apply; are you sure you have a JD?
E. Class-action baby!
If it is not you, then don't worry about it. If it is you, you ought to stop. And stalking certainly would apply. It is called cyber stalking and there are laws about such these days.
Whoever is doing this needs to stop. It is not funny. And I won't quit until it does stop.
Cyber stalking doesn't apply; I'm not sure of your field?
Sugarfree is vulnerable because of his requesting people communicate with him privately on my personal life. Those who requested information are also in legal amenability.
Further, he communicated with Reason to conspire, and they have accountability for their response
We will find out rather. But libel certainly does. And I am going to sue whoever is doing this. Again, if it is you, you need to stop. I doubt you have any assets. But that is okay. I wouldn't do it for money.
And constantly posting after someone with libelous material, would count as cyber stalking in most jurisdictions. Again, if it is not you, you have nothing to worry about.
I don't and good luck but you need an artful lawyer
Out of curiosity, did you ever email Sugarfree about my personal information?
The sad part is I would have to drag everyone's ass into this; including employers who allowed their computer to be used for 'personal' email.
I have idea who you are and I really don't care. And if you are not the one doing it or if it stops, I will never care. But understand if you are doing it and it does continue, I will find out who you are and it will stop. It is really that simple.
Answer the question John:
Did you ever email Sugarfree about my personal information?
BTW, I already know the answer to any question I ask
Of course not. I have no idea what your personal information is. I don't visit your blog and I have no idea or interest in who you are. I don't even know that it is you doing this. I am saying if it is you, you need to stop.
I suggest you take it up with with Reason, and yes this is me.
I will confirm so on my blog.
You are right to question the authenticity of discussions with me; I'm amazed with the abundance of 'my' posting
Proof this was my words
http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20.....ccate-not/
Rather sounds like a 1L on fall break with all her legal "knowledge."
Poor boy; are we a little scared? Do ya really think your IP is a secret?
People who think their IP address is some great unknown are people that don't understand how the Internet works. People who think they are great hackers because they can produce a person's IP address also don't understand how the Internet works.
Moi?
each man to his trade
Not necessarily at you in particular. I just see lots of people claiming to be some great hacker god because they can come up with someone else's IP address.
People make a lot of claims here....
To jump in to defend John here, even if all the federal government did was farm out defense research to universities, they could still pull this "federal dollars means you have to comply" shit out of their back pocket, unless the principle is rigorously established that the federal government cannot seek to attain via the spending power an end it would have been constitutionally unable to attain via a police power.
In other words, to directly answer robc's question, I could easily use the power to provide for national defense to funnel money to universities.
The army has to buy shit.
If the army pays people to research fun defense-related shit, that gives you your entree into controlling the universities by putting strings on to research payments.
Like with ROTC, I could see some universities refusing defense dept research.
For this reason, and for others.
The money would be so much smaller than now that the incentive to accept the money might never had started.
Also, I could see the courts being friendlier to preventing attached strings abuse if the only case of this occurring was with defense funds.
robc:
What about land grant colleges? Can the Federal government give land to states or other sub-units of government with the condition that they build a college on part of the grant and use proceeds from the rest of the grant to build specified institution?
No.
A very loose interprection of Article 4, Section 3 might allow it.
But I think it takes the same kind of (mis)interpretation that occurs with "regulate" in the commerce clause.
I don't have a problem with federal money going to universities.
You don't have a problem with Congress violating the constitution by exercising an unenumerated power, stealing money via taxes, and then violating the Bill of Rights via threatening to take away that stolen loot they are disbursing if the institutions receiving the money do not participate in blatant racism?
When did you turn into a modern liberal?
When did you turn into a modern liberal?
When hasnt he been one?
Well, he's never been much of a libertarian. But calling John a liberal is painting with too broad a brush.
I dont think so. Ive been calling Newt one for decades now.
Oh please. So raising an army doesn't include paying unisersities to do defense research?
And I am sorry you guys lost all of your strict constructionist creed when you claimed that the free exercise clause doesn't mean that the government can't force churches to act against their conscience.
when you claimed that the free exercise clause doesn't mean that the government can't force churches to act against their conscience.
When the fuck did I claim that?
defense research
See, that was the right answer. That is constitutionally defensible. Now, what percent of research money to universities is for defense research? Yeah, I thought so.
Uh, no. Raising an army means raising an army.
And I am unaware of any libertarians defending the contraception mandate, could you provide some links to people making such arguments?
Go read the threads Apple. There were tons of people. And raising an army means arming that army and that means researching arms.
I didnt see tons of people. Almost every regular opposes the mandate.
Go read the threads Apple.
I'll take that as a no.
And fair enough on the support/maintain argument, robc. However, that still doesn't support a general funding of universities, only funding specifically for defense purposes.
See RBM below as an example. And Tonio to name another.
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
John is right on defense research.
Now, if its for the army, it still has a 2 year budget life, however.
The Supreme Court generally agrees with me that the First Amendment should be construed as a statement of neutrality.
What makes a statement go neutral? Lust for power? Love of gold?
I hate these filthy neutrals Warty! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.
Tell my wife...hello.
Maybe they were born with a heart full of neutrality.
The Supreme Court generally agrees with me that the spending power is broad. why do you choose to believe them and site them as an authority when it gives you your pony?
Sorry but I you can't claim it is strictly construed in one area but then it is not in another because you don't like the results.
The Supreme Court generally agrees with me
I know you weren't trying to sound egotistical or anything John, but this wording made me laugh.
"Broad" =/= unlimited, John.
Oh snap, John used the defense procurement defense himself.
Sorry, my bad.
Thanks anyway. Not your bad. And the spending power is really broad. I don't understand why they go crazy over that and confuse it with the police power.
A lot of libertarians make the mistake of thinking that the constitution is a libertarian document when it gives the government lots of powers which many libertarians would not want it to have. The constitution clearly allows taxation and spending well beyond what is necessary for a libertarian minarchy.
"raising an army doesn't include paying unisersities to do defense research?"
Government paying for things it buys is different from government subsidizing businesses. The companies should develop the product privately with their own investment, and then propose the sale to the military.
I don't think any libertarian holds that argument.
Public funding of higher education is the worst form of public education. Too much undeserved authority over professions is concentrated in universities and public funding is what enables it.
It's really funny when someone confuses "should there be BANS on private discrimination?" to mean "there's no private discrimination"?
lulz
Fucking comprehension - how does it work?
If this was reported here, I missed it:
Rand Paul Blocks Federal Synthetic Drug Bans
-
One of the bills is by our old friend Chuck "The Tits" Schumer.
Why does Rand hate our children sugar free?
Strung out kids need to go see the eye doctor more. It's a nefarious optometrist plot.
Fuck yes. Rand stopping anything Schumer does is delicious.
I heard the other day that the block is pissing off the GOP leadership.
Good.
The fack that a Schumer bill is involved makes it doublygood.
The GOP leadership can end the block by getting to 60 votes and overcoming the threatened filibuster, which is what a "hold" is.
Hopefully they WON'T get to 60 votes, BTW.
And these are some gems:
Translation: let's hear his objections, and then ignore them.
And Schumer is flat out wrong. The entire point of the system is to make passing new laws a royal pain. Too bad most of the mechanisms to slow passage have been circumvented over the decades.
What the fuck is a "synthetic" drug? I love these distinctions between "organic", "synthetic", etc.
At the end of the day, we're all just chemicals (molecules and atoms if you like) kids...
I don't cotton to your hippie-dippie nonsense.
Cottons just a chemical chain, too.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW, SUGARFREE!!!?
and feel free to insert a possessive apostrophe wherever one might be appropriate in my previous post
FUCK. ME.
and feel free to insert a possessive contraction apostrophe wherever one might be appropriate in my previous post
This is the new "Almanianzzz Lawz" - when your brain's lack of caffeine combines with your general stupidity and wretched typing skills to fuck up...everything.
I think all you filthy Almanians should be sent back to Almania.
GET YOUR HANDS OFF ME YOU DAMNED DIRTY APE!
Where in the Constitution does it say you have to use an apostrophe to indicative possession? This country is teetering on the edge of oblivion!
Yeah, what you said (see my new novel "Almanianzzz Lawz" [above])
[PRIV]ation possession, even.
With the new 900 character limit, you need to economize. Feel free to dispose of that antiquated punctuation nonsense.
Wth th nw chrctr lmt, y nd t cnmz. Fl fr t dsps f tht ntqtd pncttn nnsns.
We r all o3 now...lolwut!?
lol dnt u no
u bstrd i lmst spt n my mnitr!
900 character limit?
Really? When did this happen?
Fluffy discovered it a few hours ago.
Today, I think. Hopefully it's not the only anti-rather measure they're deploying.
No, the squirrels are getting really busy at eating posts too.
NUKES!
Well the difference, I believe, is similar to the "natural" vs "artificial" distinction in food additives. "Natural" means it came from a plant or animal. "Artificial" means it was made in a test tube. Personally, I'd rather have something made in a sterile lab than something scraped out of a bull's rectum.
It's all words. And stuff we eat is all just chemicals.
NO MATTER WHAT THAT MISLEADING AND FALSE PROPHET SUGRAFREE TRIES TO TELL YOU!!
*lights bong again*
What the fuck is a "synthetic" drug?
Seems pretty simple to me. Do you really think that there is no distinction to be made between things that occur naturally, without human intervention, and things which are the product of human creativity?
So... Aspirin. Molecule occurs naturally in willow bark, but the pills you take are synthesized from industrial feedstocks. Natural or synthetic?
Oh shit. We've elected someone to the senate that has principles?
The end is nigh.
Also O'Connor was the fifth vote upholding racial discrimination in college admittance. Her seat is now occupied by Alito.
She is back at it in the morning links, John.
Thanks
I heard the other day that the block is pissing off the GOP leadership.
No doubt this consists of Mitch McConnell sitting at his desk, saying (to the air) "YOU'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN!"
"No doubt this consists of Mitch McConnell Tippy the Turtle sitting at his desk, saying..."
fixed
He tried that in 2010.
Didnt work out to well.
Also, thanks for giving me reason #187,832,648,027,652 to hate that authoritarian, blowhard, cocksucker Schumer, and the people of New York who continue to elect him.
Fuck all of you - I hope you get run over by a truck and taste your own blood.
Shorter Almanian - My judgement trumps local control.
Yeah, that's what I said. Thanks for bringing your usual brand of stupid to the forum, Urine!
"I think your decision is stupid, and say so" in Urine's world = "derp teh overrulez lolwut? huh?"
"Fuck all of you - I hope you get run over by a truck and taste your own blood."
_
ur words fool
The New York Times reports that "a Supreme Court decision forbidding the use of race in admission at public universities would almost certainly mean that it would be barred at most private ones as well under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in programs that receive federal money."
"Woah, woah, woah. That's my ox."
The commerce clause strikes again!
James Madison, in Federalist #41:
It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
He is right. But when he says "power" he doesn't mean what you think he means. He is talking about it being an excuse to create a federal police power. He is not talking about general spending.
Again, this debate was settled when Jefferson purchased Louisiana. That was only 15 years after the drafting of the Constitution. The people who wrote it were still alive. And they debated it and it was found to be Constitutional.
He is not talking about general spending.
Yes he is. As president he vetoed the highway and canals bill for this reason.
And he was wrong. It is not what the document meant. And he wasn't the only drafter. Other people disagreed with him. Indeed, Jefferson himself did so when he bought Louisiana.
This issue has been settled for over 200 years.
No, he was right. He wasnt the only drafter, but he was the primary one.
It was violated from the very beginning, but it was still a violation. Although, I think I could possibly (maybe?) defend the Louisiana Purchase on other grounds ... treaty power, if nothing else.
He wasn't even the primary one. Governor Morris was the primary if anyone was.
Madison was primary, IIRC. Followed by the guy whose name I cant remember.
Maybe Morris was 3rd.
Morris was the head of the committee responsible for the final draft.
Madison was the primary author.
James Wilson was the guy I couldnt think of who was probably #2 in authorship.
And treaties don't give the feds the power to do things that they don't already have the power to do.
By your logic, the feds could sign a treaty creating a national speed limit or marriage law. And they clearly couldn't.
Although, I think I could possibly (maybe?) defend the Louisiana Purchase on other grounds ... treaty power, if nothing else.
You could except for the $15M price tag.
What Jefferson did was clearly unconstitutional.
I love Jefferson, but we should do as he said, not as he did.
And that was AFTER the Louisiana Purchase.
And I quote (from his veto statement):
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper.
Would have quotes a bigger chunk, but huh, I ran into that new limit.
He never agreed with Jefferson on that. But so what? Madison was not a God king. And he wasn't the only drafter of the document. Governor Morris wrote more of it than he did. And most people at the time disagreed with Madison, at least with regard to spending.
Jefferson was in fucking Paris.
I am not talking about him. I talking about Morris. Not everyone agreed with Madison. He is not the ultimate authority. And we had this debate during the lifetime of the framers. And your side lost. This issue has long been settled. You are the only one still clinging to it. It is not even a liberal versus conservative debate. It is so old and so long settled that it pre-dates such distinctions.
Just because one of the framers thought it meant that, doesn't mean that is what it meant. The others got a vote to. And the Supreme Court and two hundred years of accepted practice get a vote.
Could it mean what you say? Sure. But it doesn't have to mean that. So how do we determine which meaning is correct? I would say the consensus of and the practice of the people who wrote the document is a pretty good way. And your side lost that consensus.
consensus
There is no consensus. For all of US history, there have been people who agree with me on this issue.
A consensus has never been reached.
Yes it has. No one said a consensus has to be unanimous just a large majority. And if you think it is a bad idea, say way. Just because the Constitution says it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
Ive said why a billion times. But, it is also unconstitutional. The one man dissent is enough to prevent consensus.
I agree with robc.
No consensus here.
I'm not sure your words are in the right order.
That was for robc.
I stand behind my order of words.
Not that others arent accurate too.
Morris was part of the bad apples that fucked everything up. He's the one who gave Hamilton the foot in the door as Treasury Secretary and his rise to power with his influence from being the richest guy at the time. Those people would obviously, and have vehemently disagreed with Madison.
Any liberty loving person would be using Madison's own clearly expressed intentions who was the primary author (even if everyone was part of the debate).
Just because something was passed or "found to be ok" doesn't mean it was--again, as Madison has stated it--even it without his own intentions, it's clear you can't make a logically consistent, principled argument for it.
Are you going to argue for the Alien and Sedition Acts, also passed right after ratification, in plain contradiction, when they were still alive and that they (the majority of congress) were "ok with it"?
Morris was just as much of a framer as Madison. Madison doesn't have dictatorial powers over the document. And Madison's views are no more authoritative on the subject as Morris'. If you want to talk about the framers, fine. But talk about the "framers" with an 's' not just the one who tells you what you want to hear.
"derp teh overrulez lolwut? huh?"
It's a little long for a band name, but it's catchy.
the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States
anybody, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.
The thing about the Louisiana Purchase is that the constitution says that treaties AND the constitution are the highest law of the land.
So strictly speaking, anything you put into a treaty is automatically constitutional.
This is a hole in the document's construction, of course, since it means that if I was President I could sign a treaty with Mexico saying the entire constitution is annulled and you are all my slaves, and if I get the Senate to ratify I win. But on paper it seems to hold up.
Treaties can't trump the Constitution. There was a case about that concerning the migratory bird treaty with Canada. I forget the details. But many people feared just what you wrote. And the Court rightfully said no, that treaties are still subject to being Constitutional. So the federal government can't sign a treaty giving it the power to do something it doesn't have under the Constitution.
I'm vaguely familiar with this; something about not having 60 senators circumvent the amendment process by treaty.
Right, but that's not a necessary reading of the Constitution.
The words are there to allow treaties to trump the Constitution.
So if the thread question is, "Why would Jefferson think he had the power to sign any old treaty he wanted?" one possible answer is "Because the Constitution said he did."
Some have tried to argue that, but it's an insane distortion of the document and is clearly false. The same language could be applied to make statutes superior to the Constitution, which, of course, negates the whole purpose of having a Constitution.
Obviously I don't think it's a sensible way to construct a constitution.
But the words are there.
Common sense says they shouldn't be. But they are.
I don't agree. The context is in connection with stating that all federal power is supreme. Laws are included. So that reading would mean that all statutes trump the Constitution.
Treaties are merely part of the body of federal law. There's really no rational dispute over this.
That's incorrect. What the Supremacy Clause is saying is that the whole of federal law is supreme over other laws--state, local, etc. Treaties are not superior to the Constitution and are subordinate to it, as are statutes, regulations, and other federal activities. The Constitution is the foundation of all federal power and can't be legally modified except by amendment or constitutional convention (in practice, of course, the courts and other branches have modified the heck out of it).
Here is the clause at issue:
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
Note that it refers to "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof", meaning that laws are subordinate to the Constitution in that they only have effect if they are made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution.
It also says "Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States". Well, that authority is derived from the Constitution itself, which I believe means that treaties, like laws, ultimately derive their authority from, and are thus subordinate to, the Constitution.
No government had the right to buy or sell the land in the Louisiana Purchase. They didn't own it. Indians owned some of it, and unsettled land rightfully becomes the property of the first party that settles on it. The public land concept was bullshit.
Did we buy the land or did we buy Sovereignty over that territory? The U.S. didn't claim ownership of all land in the territory - we claimed the right to govern. As if we had won a war, without the fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....vey_System
The U.S. federal government claimed and still claims ownership of unsettled land. People who had already settled some areas were not allowed legal ownership of their claim until an act of congress released that land for ownership, and then those people had to pay the government for the land. Titles to huge amounts of land were also granted to politically connected parties, such as railroad investors, who may have never even set foot on it. If anyone wanted to actually settle on and use that land, they then had to pay the politically connected party for ownership.
900 characters?
So long, Herc!
*holds hat over heart*
So long trying to post a single paragraph of the Federalist 41.
Yep, that is what I tried. And failed.
If the guy in the picture would get a haircut, he could be president one day.
Guys, we have a serious problem.
The 900 character limit prohibits the posting of the Wall of Ermey.
I find this unacceptable.
I couldn't post all of "The Cult of Personality" in another thread.
Is there a 900 character version of the Galt Radio Speech?
lol dstryd ur wrld k
fbmm
*chucks deuces*
fml? lol no furlvz
A is A.
Looking real quick, I think Article 4, Section 3 covers the Louisiana Purchase.
What are the arguments against that?
I think affirmative action should move away from race preferences and toward class preferences. SCOTUS will almost certainly strike down the former, and almost certainly will still find it OK to treat which alumnus's loins an applicant happened to shoot from as an acceptable nonacademic consideration.
Your spoof is too obvious.
Now I'll never know what happened to the heroine of OWS's autobiographical novel from yesterday. Did her degree in Suppression Studies free her from the bonds of patriarchy? Or did she settle down with a nice Jewish boy from Queens working on his medical degree?
Sadness descends.
Did her degree in Suppression Studies
Wait, is this part serious?
LOL
From Federalist 41 (small enough to fit):
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
This is all about spending power, not police power, as the enumeration of powers were spending powers, and thus the preceding general power is also.
The police v spending power argument is bullshit.
Since John thinks I am treating Madison as a god, I will point out that he was wrong in Federalist 43.
9/13 wasnt enough to ratify the constitution, despite what the document said. It required unanimity to change the AoC, and thus the constitution wasnt really valid until the 13th state had ratified, in my opinion.
His argument around this is sound, but still bullshit.
It is not that his argument is wrong. It is that there are others equally as compelling. The document could be interpreted to mean a lot of different things. And that side lost the argument. And more importantly, they lost it within the life time of the framers. So this is not some made up bullshit by an activist court. No, my side is the opinion of many of the people drafted and approved the document in the first place, just not Madison.
Why is Madison right and they wrong? Who knows. But regardless the debate is moot. It was settled. The document doesn't mean that. If it did, American history post 1805 would look totally different, no homestead act, no Erie Canal, no Corps of Engineers, and so forth. At some point the debate ends and you decide what the document means.
The consequences of such a decision would be striking. It would, all sides agree, reduce the number of African-American and Latino students at nearly every selective college and graduate school, with more Asian-American and white students gaining entrance instead.
Critics of Affirmative Action might argue that this outcome could be entirely prevented if black kids on average increased their study hours to that of white and Asian kids; however, that solution doesn't call for government intervention so it can't be taken seriously.
If anything the government action makes it worse. Why should black kids study as hard as Asians or whites when they don't have to? If someone had told me when I was 16 that I didn't need as good of grades or SATS to get into college, I would have had a lot more fun.
Isn't it possible that black kids don't study as much because they know the system and know they don't have to?
Only if you assume that black kids are as smart as white and Asian kids, John.
That is clearly an illiberal and racist assumption of mine RC.
Maybe asians are smarter and know the deck is stacked against them and they have to work twice as hard. There's a reason why I pull 80 hours a week in the lab.
And black kids are just as smart and know the deck is stacked for them. And thus do not put in the 80 hours a week in the lab because they don't have to.
Libertarians don't understand the challenges for black kids growing up in the hood...nor do they care.
Get rid of affirmative action, let the FREE MARKET handle the problem.
However, you will need more money for jails.
Ever the discussion on raw intelligence or race.
These rights also would allow private institutions to pursue whatever race-conscious remedies they deemed appropriate in response to the lingering effects of slavery and institutionalized racism, no matter what the Supreme Court said.
Yea, we saw how black people were able to start up bus companies, eateries, and other businesses in the south during Jim Crow.
Here's a solution. Take away all of the discretion from college admission people...they are all liberals anyway.
Make it so that the admission only sees social security number, SAT score, and class rank. No names, no addresses, no anything else. GRADES ONLY.
Or, have NO REGULATIONS at ALL for private colleges and a GRADES ONLY policy for Public Colleges.
Which is not something I typically do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think.
The New York Times reports that "a Supreme Court decision forbidding the use of race in admission at public universities would almost certainly mean that it would be barred at most private ones as well under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in programs that receive federal money." Here is another reason that progressives should not be so quick to dismiss the libertarian distinction between public and private discrimination.