Will the Right Eventually Openly Dump the Constitution?

Page 9 of 9 [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

20 Mar 2011, 5:40 pm

You still cannot equate my proposal to Obama's pet policy mine involves a voluntary action.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

20 Mar 2011, 9:32 pm

ikorack wrote:
You still cannot equate my proposal to Obama's pet policy mine involves a voluntary action.


A charity, choosing to help people it wants to help, even if acting across state lines, does not automatically come under federal regulation via the commerce clause. It certainly does not if it acts within the borders of the state it is founded in.

You propose....well, I'm not sure what you are proposing....that just because Congress passes a law it must apply to everyone and everything? No. That's not true. The US Government is one of enumerated powers. Government has no effect to its laws if there is no constitutional authority delegated to it.

The civil rights act deals with matters of commerce, employment and opportunity. A charity is about providing a service to people it deems worthy of helping.

You cannot walk into a charity and say you want service or benefits and obligate them to give them to you. It is 100% their choice.

This is contrasted to a business, which does possess the right to refuse you service but generally will give anyone a product or service if they are willing to pay for it.

A business run by an African-American can not refuse to serve a white person unless there is some particular reason for that particular person (e.g., customer acting erratically...creating fear in other customers and proprietor that he's dangerous).

A charity run by an African-American can refuse to serve white people for whatever reason. If the supporters of that charity don't approve, they can stop funding the charity, but the government can't force that charity to provide services to white people.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Mar 2011, 6:16 am

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The difference between those and Obamacare is that Obamacare penalizes someone for choosing not to participate in commerce to begin with, which an entirely different animal.


So what? People who don't donate to charities have to pay more in taxes. It is just a tax.


Charity is a choice, not a tax. And the assumption that the government must fill the gaps not covered by charity is based on a wrong minded malicious view of government. Government has only two Excuses for Existing: 1. To defend our shores. 2. to keep the domestic peace. And that is it! Government is not there to help the needy or to make us Better.

ruveyn



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 6:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The difference between those and Obamacare is that Obamacare penalizes someone for choosing not to participate in commerce to begin with, which an entirely different animal.


So what? People who don't donate to charities have to pay more in taxes. It is just a tax.


Charity is a choice, not a tax. And the assumption that the government must fill the gaps not covered by charity is based on a wrong minded malicious view of government. Government has only two Excuses for Existing: 1. To defend our shores. 2. to keep the domestic peace. And that is it! Government is not there to help the needy or to make us Better.

ruveyn


But if help for the needy is not legally mandated it may not exist anymore. Why doesn't that bother you?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Mar 2011, 6:24 am

jamieboy wrote:

But if help for the needy is not legally mandated it may not exist anymore. Why doesn't that bother you?


Or it might be. You want guarantees? They you opt for dictatorship.

Long before the New Deal, charities were feeding and clothing the Poor.

There have always been Alms for the poor. What galls the pinko stinko commie Liberals as that Alms makes the thing a matter of -choice- for the given, not an obligation to fulfill the rights of the receiver.

the Leftos want us to believe that the poor have a RIGHT (! !! !) to be supported by their betters. Jeeezus!

ruveyn



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

21 Mar 2011, 7:33 am

zer0netgain wrote:
ikorack wrote:
You still cannot equate my proposal to Obama's pet policy mine involves a voluntary action.


A charity, choosing to help people it wants to help, even if acting across state lines, does not automatically come under federal regulation via the commerce clause. It certainly does not if it acts within the borders of the state it is founded in.


I didn't claim they fell under on the basis of supplying services across stateliness, I said they would fall under it by accepting donations across state lines or by buying supplies or equipment from across stateliness. Voluntary actions.

Quote:
You propose....well, I'm not sure what you are proposing....that just because Congress passes a law it must apply to everyone and everything? No. That's not true. The US Government is one of enumerated powers. Government has no effect to its laws if there is no constitutional authority delegated to it.


Not what I'm claiming at all, read title two of the civil rights act, it gives two conditions for bringing an operation under it, public accommodations and participation in interstate commerce. And the conditions are perfectly within the powers of the federal government, it has authority over interstate trade and that's the basis for title two of the civil rights act.

Quote:
The civil rights act deals with matters of commerce, employment and opportunity. A charity is about providing a service to people it deems worthy of helping.

You cannot walk into a charity and say you want service or benefits and obligate them to give them to you. It is 100% their choice.

This is contrasted to a business, which does possess the right to refuse you service but generally will give anyone a product or service if they are willing to pay for it.

A business run by an African-American can not refuse to serve a white person unless there is some particular reason for that particular person (e.g., customer acting erratically...creating fear in other customers and proprietor that he's dangerous).

A charity run by an African-American can refuse to serve white people for whatever reason. If the supporters of that charity don't approve, they can stop funding the charity, but the government can't force that charity to provide services to white people.


Charities serve the public, even if they have to exercise (legal)discrimination in their funds their general purpose is to the public and they commonly set up physical entities to accommodate the public. The assumption is that if you ask for help from a charity and you fall under their operations(aka a foodbank isn't a daycare) you will receive aid unless there is something which disqualifies you.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

21 Mar 2011, 8:12 am

ikorack wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
ikorack wrote:
You still cannot equate my proposal to Obama's pet policy mine involves a voluntary action.


A charity, choosing to help people it wants to help, even if acting across state lines, does not automatically come under federal regulation via the commerce clause. It certainly does not if it acts within the borders of the state it is founded in.


I didn't claim they fell under on the basis of supplying services across stateliness, I said they would fall under it by accepting donations across state lines or by buying supplies or equipment from across stateliness. Voluntary actions.


I don't know how to get this through to you.

Quote:
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.


SHOW ME WHERE A CHARITY FALLS UNDER THIS LAW.

Quote:
TITLE VI--NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS
SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


Here, only if a charity takes federal money is it obligated by the Civil Rights Act.

ikorack wrote:
Charities serve the public, even if they have to exercise (legal)discrimination in their funds their general purpose is to the public and they commonly set up physical entities to accommodate the public. The assumption is that if you ask for help from a charity and you fall under their operations(aka a foodbank isn't a daycare) you will receive aid unless there is something which disqualifies you.


They serve a segment of the public, but they are not a business. By the plain meaning of the law, when you bother to read what it authorizes, it only applies to a BUSINESS or an entity that accepts federal funding to operate.

Many criticized G.W. Bush's "faith-based initiatives" because private organizations taking federal money was opening the door to government telling private organizations how to operate. Many groups refused to participate in the initiative because they didn't want to deal with the complication of adhering to any number of federal regulations that came with taking federal money.

Your point of view is your own, but it is legally unsubstantiated.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Mar 2011, 8:18 am

Legit charities are NOT run for profit so they are not regulated by laws which require businesses that serve the public to operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. However if a charitable organization tax a tax funded buck from the government it is bound by government rules.

The purpose of charities is to effectuate the redistribution of funds from those who can afford to give to the needy in a voluntary fashion. In short, charity is the engine of alms giving in our society. The people who receive charity have no RIGHT to it, but they are the beneficiaries of it by virtue of a voluntary act on the part of the giver. Givees get gifts to which they have no prior right. It is the giver that has the right to give in amounts he chooses to give to recipients which he designates.

ruveyn



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

21 Mar 2011, 8:48 am

@zerg, jesus fine I agree no need to go all rage on me.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Mar 2011, 7:27 pm

To regulate charitable giving would be the end of it for all practical purposes. One of the main reasons people give to charity is that they choose were it goes.