Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Gorsuch uses Humpty Dumpty theory of language in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case

  1. #1

    Gorsuch uses Humpty Dumpty theory of language in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case

    In the Bostock v. Clayton County case Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, June, 2020, lied to the American People with regard the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The case involved three business owners who made business decisions to let go an employee based on their sexual deviant behavior and conduct. Gorsuch found they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by simply asserting the word “sex”, found in the Act, not only applies to the male and female gender, but also applies to sexual behavior and conduct.

    Of course, Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Senator Howard who added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, was to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace.

    But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex, and thus, adding “sex” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in and of itself, was an assumption of power not granted to Congress. In fact, a number of attempts have been made over the years to grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit distinctions in the workplaces being made based upon sex. in the 1920s an “Equal Rights” amendment was proposed to be added to the United States Constitution which would have, if adopted, granted the legislative power to Congress, i.e.,

    “Article  —

    “ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    “ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”


    But these attempts to grant the legislative power to Congress have repeatedly been rejected by the American People and for good cause . . . unintended consequences and those predictable, some of which would fly in the face of our nation’s moral character.


    In any event, the question is, where does Congress get the legislative authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people have refused to grant such power to Congress and have preferred to deal with this issue within their own state borders?

    The sad truth is, Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, simply applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and did so to enforce his personal sense of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

    JWK

    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex, and thus, adding “sex” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in and of itself, was an assumption of power not granted to Congress.
    The authority for 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Commerce Clause. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

    Your use of the term "sexual deviant conduct" is as Humpty Dumptyish as anything. At one time I suspect that anything other than the use of the missionary position by married couples was deemed deviant, but times have changed.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The authority for 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Commerce Clause.




    The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”



    The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.

    Now, getting back to the subject of the thread:

    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not authorized by our Constitution to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. And Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion lied in Bostock v. Clayton County, by asserting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also prohibits business owners to make business decisions based upon sexual deviant behavior and conduct.



    In fact, Justice Gorsuch applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce his personal sense of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."



    JWK



    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

  6. #5
    Sounds like legislating from the bench. Not a very originalist interpretation.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post



    The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”



    The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.

    Now, getting back to the subject of the thread:

    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not authorized by our Constitution to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. And Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion lied in Bostock v. Clayton County, by asserting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also prohibits business owners to make business decisions based upon sexual deviant behavior and conduct.



    In fact, Justice Gorsuch applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce his personal sense of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."



    JWK



    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
    I agree that the 1965 Civil Rights Act is an bold face usurpation

    License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 470-471 (1867) (holding that Congress has "no power" to regulate "the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States, " including the intrastate sale of lottery tickets); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 587-601 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (documenting why the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate purely local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce)

    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

    The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.
    I was talking about what the law IS, not about what someone thinks it SHOULD be.

    Incidentally, given your quote from Justice Black you should be informed that he concurred in the decisions in both Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung. From his concurring opinion in the former:

    It requires no novel or strained interpretation of the Commerce Clause to sustain Title II as applied in either of these cases. At least since Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, decided in 1824 in an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, it has been uniformly accepted that the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States is plenary, "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." 9 Wheat., at 196. Nor is "Commerce" as used in the Commerce Clause to be limited to a narrow, technical concept. It includes not only, as Congress has enumerated in the Act, "travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication," but also all other unitary transactions and activities that take place in more States than one. That some parts or segments of such unitary transactions may take place only in one State cannot, of course, take from Congress its plenary power to regulate them in the national interest. The facilities and instrumentalities used to carry on this commerce, such as railroads, truck lines, ships, rivers, and even highways are also subject to congressional regulation, so far as is necessary to keep interstate traffic upon fair and equal terms. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557.

    Furthermore, it has long been held that the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 18, adds to the commerce power of Congress the power to regulate local instrumentalities operating within a single State if their activities burden the flow of commerce among the States.
    379 U.S. at 270-271
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 03-04-2021 at 06:51 PM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 470-471 (1867) (holding that Congress has "no power" to regulate "the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States, " including the intrastate sale of lottery tickets); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 587-601 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (documenting why the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate purely local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce).
    That aspect of The License Tax Cases has been overruled by numerous later SCOTUS cases. Lopez didn't involve economic activity but rather the validity of a criminal law prohibiting the posession of a handgun close to a school.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Justice Gorsuch engaged in an act of tyranny in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Sounds like legislating from the bench. Not a very originalist interpretation.
    That's exactly what Justice Gorsuch's opinion is.


    The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative authority proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Equality Act, is a usurpation of power not granted.

    The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is as follows:

    "ARTICLE

    "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    "Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    "Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."


    Note that Section 2 would grant the power which Gorsuch exercised in spite of the American People denying that power to our federal government, and to this degree, Gorsuch acted as judge, jury and executioner . . . so to speak.


    JWK


    ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The authority for 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Commerce Clause.

    You are making crap up. The constitutional "justification" for the various Civil Rights Acts is the Thirteenth Amendment, not the commerce clause. And the purpose of the first Civil Rights Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men." The 13th Amendment reads:

    Amendment XIII

    Section 1

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2
    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


    The Civil Rights Act, justified by the Thirteenth Amendment, goes on to declare:

    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
    I see nothing in the wording of Article 1, Section, 8, Clause 3, [the commerce clause] granting power to Congress to enter the States and forbid the States, and people therein, from making distinctions in their social and commercial activities based upon "sex". But you certainly are free to point to those words in Article 1, Section, 8, Clause 3.Let me remind you we are talking about the word "sex' being added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act without that subject matter [sex] being found anywhere in the Constitution except the 19th Amendment, and that amendment specifically authorizes Congress to enforce the 19th Amendment "by appropriate legislation".

    So, the question is, where in the Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding the States, and people therein, from making distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?

    JWK

    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You are making crap up. The constitutional "justification" for the various Civil Rights Acts is the Thirteenth Amendment, not the commerce clause. And the purpose of the first Civil Rights Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men."
    I referred to the 1964 Act, not the 1866 Act, and I quoted Justice Black's reliance on the Commerce Clause in upholding its constitutionality. That's not making stuff up, although profoundly ignorant people might think so. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Black and the rest of the Justices.

    You also don't see anything about interstate shipment of adulterated foods, prostitution, or other specific items in the Commerce Clause, yet Congress' authority to regulate or even ban such things has long been recognized. You can even go back to Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, in which a unanimous Court held that the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to regulate interstate navigation, despite the fact that navigation isn't mentioned in the Clause. So take your complaint up with John Marshall.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Originally Posted by johnwk
    You are making crap up. The constitutional "justification" for the various Civil Rights Acts is the Thirteenth Amendment, not the commerce clause. And the purpose of the first Civil Rights Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men."
    I referred to the 1964 Act, not the 1866 Act, and I quoted Justice Black's reliance on the Commerce Clause in upholding its constitutionality. That's not making stuff up, although profoundly ignorant people might think so. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Black and the rest of the Justices.
    The notion that the commerce clause is justification for the 1964 civil rights act is without foundation. PERIOD!


    The fact is, the adoption of the 1866 Civil Rights legislation exhibits the constitutional process by which Congress was authorized to author, and then enact into law, “appropriate legislation” [the Civil Rights Act of 1866] specifically designed to, as its author, Senator Trumbull, stated, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men".


    Keep in mind, the first step in the process, to legitimize “enforcement by appropriate legislation” over a subject matter was the approval of the 13th Amendment by the American people, giving Congress the power “… to enforce . . . by appropriate legislation”, the provisions of the 13th Amendment which turns out to be the Civil Rights Act of 1866.


    So, the question remains, where in the Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt "appropriate legislation" to break down distinctions made within the States based upon sex, and likewise break down distinctions made based upon sex in the people’s social and commercial activities within the various state borders?"


    I see nothing in the wording of Article 1, Section, 8, Clause 3, [the commerce clause] granting power to Congress to enter the States and forbid the States, and people therein, from making distinctions in their social and commercial activities based upon "sex". But you certainly are free to point to those words in Article 1, Section, 8, Clause 3.

    JWK


    "Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez
    Last edited by johnwk; 06-28-2021 at 07:25 AM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    The notion that the commerce clause is justification for the 1964 civil rights act is without foundation. PERIOD!
    A unanimous Supreme Court disagrees. Read this and learn something instead of wallowing in your ignorance. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    A unanimous Supreme Court disagrees. Read this and learn something instead of wallowing in your ignorance. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241
    I haven't read all of that yet. But it looks like the reasoning of the Court in that ruling is limited to certain kinds of businesses, such as a hotel in that case, that provide services that are required for interstate commerce. It doesn't follow from that that the same argument would apply to all businesses.

    I don't buy the reasoning of the Court even as far as that goes. But I found that interesting.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post

    Originally Posted by johnwk
    The notion that the commerce clause is justification for the 1964 civil rights act is without foundation. PERIOD!
    A unanimous Supreme Court disagrees. Read this and learn something instead of wallowing in your ignorance. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241
    Stop making more crap up!

    There is nothing in that ruling confirming the commerce clause is justification for the 1964 civil rights act.

    Instead, the ruling opines that under a specific set of unique circumstances, racial discrimination interfered with commerce.

    I have actually read the Congressional debates during which time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was debated and approved, and nowhere in those debates can I find evidence to support your assertion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is based on the "Commerce Clause".

    In fact, and to the contrary, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a continuation in furthering previous civil rights Acts and adding new anti-discrimination legislation.

    JWK

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I have actually read the Congressional debates during which time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was debated and approved, and nowhere in those debates can I find evidence to support your assertion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is based on the "Commerce Clause".
    Do a search for the word "commerce" in this message JFK gave to Congress urging them to pass legislation that would become the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and let us know what you find.
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...-opportunities
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Do a search for the word "commerce" in this message JFK gave to Congress urging them to pass legislation that would become the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and let us know what you find.
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docu...-opportunities
    Better yet, study the 88th Congressional debates as I have done to document the intentions for which the 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved of by Congress.

    Aside from that, the fact remains Congress has never been granted power to enact "appropriate legislation" involving the subject matter of "sex", excluding of course the 19th Amendment, and this delegation of legislative power is specifically limited to the right to vote being denied or abridged based upon "sex".

    JWK
    Last edited by johnwk; 06-28-2021 at 02:09 PM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Better yet, study the 88th Congressional debates as I have done to document the intentions for which the 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved of by Congress.
    I don't see why it needs to be an either/or. I suspect that if I spent time studying those debates I would find that they did mention the Commerce Clause. But since we already know that it was mentioned by JFK in the message I linked, then its background in those debates is already established without my needing to do that. The SCOTUS opinion Sonny linked also provided evidence on this point, not only inasmuch as the Court relied on the Commerce clause for its opinion, but also that it referred back to sources for the intent of the legislation that made the same point.

    I'm not arguing in favor of that interpretation of the Commerce Clause. But clearly, it was used (whether rightly or wrongly) as a constitutional justification for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Edit: Also note the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act itself explicitly and repeatedly appeals to the affect businesses have on commerce as the basis for the regulating them with the legislation it entails.
    https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php...age=transcript
    It makes no sense to say that this isn't true on the basis of Congress allegedly not brining the point up in its debate about the legislation. It's an explicit part of the legislation itself that they were debating.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 06-28-2021 at 02:53 PM.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I don't see why it needs to be an either/or.

    Well, if one asserts the 1964 Civil Rights Act is justified under Congress’ power to regulate commerce, then, as we both have noted, its force and effect would come into play only under a specific set of unique circumstances under which racial and sex discrimination interferes with the flow of “commerce among the States”.

    But, as the debates confirm, the object of the 88th Congress was much larger, and intended to add to the protections found in earlier Civil Rights Acts. Of course, the enforcement of the Act as written, unquestionably creates an incidental result with respect to the flow of commerce among the States.

    In any event, your “either/or” comment is well made.

    JWK

  23. #20
    OP is right but there is nothing we can do about this or anything else anymore.

    We are disenfranchised.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Stop making more crap up!

    There is nothing in that ruling confirming the commerce clause is justification for the 1964 civil rights act.
    You have a serious reading problem:

    The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress based the Act on § 5 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as its power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution.

    The Senate Commerce Committee made it quite clear that the fundamental object of Title II was to vindicate 'the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.' At the same time, however, it noted that such an objective has been and could be readily achieved 'by congressional action based on the commerce power of the Constitution.' S.Rep. No. 872, supra, at 16—17. Our study of the legislative record, made in the light of prior cases, has brought us to the conclusion that Congress possessed ample power in this regard, and we have therefore not considered the other grounds relied upon. This is not to say that the remaining authority upon which it acted was not adequate, a question upon which we do not pass, but merely that since the commerce power is sufficient for our decision here we have considered it alone. Nor is § 201(d) or § 202, having to do with state action, involved here and we do not pass upon either of those. 379 U.S. at 249-250 (emphasis added)
    The case dealt with the constitutionality of Title II of the Act, which dealt with discrimination in public accommodations. Other parts of the Act were based on other constitutional provisions, since they dealt with discrimination by government (thereby implicating the 5th and 14th Amendments) and by programs receiving government funding.

    It's true that Title II applied only to a place of public accommodation "if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action", but due to the unfortunate expansion of the Commerce Clause by the Court (see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (1964), upholding the federal drug prohibitions as applied to home-grown marijuana used for medical purposes) it's hard to imagine any economic activity that the Clause doesn't reach, even if it occurs wholly within a state. While I disagree with this expansion, I don't delude myself and claim that it's not the law.

    In addition, there is no rule of law that says Congress must be authorized by the Constitution to enact "appropriate legislation" in order to exercise any of its delegated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce. In one sense, such authority was granted from the start in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk
    Stop making more crap up!

    There is nothing in that ruling confirming the commerce clause is justification for the 1964 civil rights act.

    You have a serious reading problem:



    Your opinion is in error. I suggest you actually review the documented intentions and beliefs under which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the States. I have, and found nothing, even remotely, indicating the power in question was granted to justify the kind of legislation found in the 1964 civil rights act.

    JWK

    "Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ U.S. vs. Lopez



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2020, 01:58 PM
  2. Humpty Dumpty Has Had a Great Fall
    By shakey1 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-01-2019, 07:24 PM
  3. Greedy Humpty Dumpty = NWO
    By Petar in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 10:54 PM
  4. Peter Schiff: The Humpty Dumpty Economy 11/14/08
    By nbruno322 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 02:38 PM
  5. Political Cartoon - Humpty Dumpty
    By Change in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 10:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •