Hacker News Reader

Comment by olliej | Hacker News Reader

While also actively removing the rights of employees and claiming that is their constitutional right. Woo!

Explain the constitutional basis for the civil rights act, a law stripping intrastate business owners of their civil rights while congress pulls the ability to regulate intrastate trade out of a hat. It all goes downhill from that insane legislation.

You get sovereignty in return. You know, if the history unfolded differently you could have been speaking French, or Spanish or something else. I think this is the fair basis. Citizens have rights and responsibilities. Why would corporations only have rights if they so insist on being treated as persons?

I'm talking about how congress can regulate intrastate trade in this manner. Most regulatory agencies stomp on that, and stuff like civil rights act is wildly unconstitutional and clearly designated to at best the states per the 10th.

It also protects equal representation and voting rights through power given to congress in the 14th and 15th amendment. As well as the Commerce clause.

Does that mean I can apply for government issued lease of the Hawaiian Home Lands apportionment and sue when they deny me? The 14th doesn't seem to apply to the states, otherwise Hawaii couldn't restrict land to 'the blood' of the right race.

According to our legal systems, you are welcome to try this and argue it and if its truly a constitutional crisis it just might get argued in front of the supreme court.

This finally worked for the 15th. It wasn't until the year 2000 that other races in Hawaii were granted equal voting rights in rice v cayetano. 130 years after the 15th was passed. Maybe in another 130 the 14th will apply to the state.

As for the CRA, there were previous ones defended under 14/15 and it was struck. The unique defense of the CRA is interstate commerce as expanded under wickard to somehow include basically all trade.

> clearly designated to at best the states per the 10th.

I think you're probably missing a word here (or maybe some commas..or maybe autocorrected). But it's related to the 10th amendment:

"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."

Right. People or states. Not congress.

Ok, so who does the federal congress represent? Could it be... you know, the people?

But I do realize now from looking at your other comments, this is a 30 day old account in which all you do is spout BS white supremacist, conservative, and anti-workers right BS so I'm going to just assume you're paid to be a troll or maybe just another person who's personal choices have screwed them and decide to blame others rather than just addressing your own failings.

Have a good day, and maybe get some therapy.

I love the anger at the notion that the Federal government might get involved in protecting the rights of people who don't happen to be you. I seriously doubt you'll ever be self-aware enough to understand the irony of it.

The civil rights act actually explicitly designed to work against my race, as it authorized nearby off res businesses to preferentially hire an Indian living near the reservation.

"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

And I know you won't get that, either.

Equality is when I'm allowed to prefer people for being Indian off res, unless they're in the 'communist party' which in a baffling exception explicitly authorizes their firing...

It wasn't Civil Rights Act that did what you are thinking of. It's Wickard v. Filburn. The landmark case which cemented the Federal Government's ability to intervene in acts of intrastate commerce on the assumption of impact on interstate commerce.

If you're actually concerned about a clear and present case of Federal overreach, focus on the actual source of the precedent in what is, as I understand it, the ultimate source of greatly exaggerated Federal reach.

The Civil Rights Act is generally far less controversial in terms of adherence to the Constitutionally defined implementation process.

CRA is biggest cited reason why you can't overturn wickard v filburn, because CRA depends on its expansion of commerce clause, and well we can't lose the CRA.

With the vile CRA gone Wickard will be less defensible for destruction.

Explain the constitutional basis for a corporation. It all goes downhill from that insane legislation.

The institutions mentioned unfortunately also apply to natural persons, otherwise no doubt you could just burn some homeless persons identity as the employer in trust to avoid these tyrants.

I suppose the problem you have is that business owners aren't free to force people to use different entrances, washrooms, and drinking fountains?

They aren't free to force anything, as they can't force anyone to patronize their business. If you want black Somali lady inc bar I say have at it.

>a law stripping intrastate business owners of their civil rights to strip private citizens of their civil rights

There, fixed that for you.

> while congress pulls the ability to regulate intrastate trade out of a hat

The hat would be article one, section eight, clause three of the US Constiution which grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States".

Explain the constitutional basis for people's desire to discriminate against people of different races and religions?

The CRA exists because a bunch of shithead treason states hate the constitution's requirements that they treat people equally regardless of race. Prior to the CRA specifying that such actions had actual penalties these states routinely prevent PoC from equal employment, equal service, equal pay, and frequently the right to vote. Before you even get to the whole murdering PoC and people who support them and somehow never being able to find the culprits.

Look I get it that many people live in this delusional world where the constitution only applies if its beneficial to them, and the protections only apply if it protects them, but things like the CRA and the NLRB exist specifically to deal with those shitheads by saying "just because your state government is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-non-christians, anti-actual-people's rights, and is generally bigoted doesn't mean you can say those policies supersede the US constitution". These laws, regulations, and institutions all came into existence at the federal level, because of treason states refusing to just obey the actual US constitution, which definitionally supersedes any shitty beliefs those rundown BS states may have.

If your argument is "restricting interstate trade in response to violating the constitution" is unconstitutional, I wonder how you reconcile that with punishing people for violating any law? after all isn't incarcerating someone depriving them of their constitutional rights?

The 14th amendment.

If the 14th applies this way why does Hawaii tell me I'm of the blood of the wrong race to lease state owned land?

You are free to file suite.

This worked for the 15th when they had racist voting (took until year 2000 to fix). Ginsberg, showing her true pro racism colors, dissented in Rice v cayetano. The 14th for HHA would be a worthy case no doubt.

That aside, previous CRA under 14/15 were struck, it didn't stick until expansion of commerce under wickard.

This really just underlies how shitty the concept of "constitutional right" has become at expressing "behavior I'd very happily kill to protect".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com