Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!

[darrylRouson]

You are raising legitimate questions so I will address them. A private business owner has the right to choose to open his doors to the public. If he wants to open them to only certain parts of the public, he should not open his doors to the public, but rather classify himself as a private club, or private residence, or just a business not open to the public..

The word "public" means anywhere under control of the government

In another context, you're talking about publicly OWNED, not OPEN to the public.

, such as a park or a courthouse.

Which is Publicly owned & open to the public

A restaurant is not "public". It is "private" but the general public is allowed in.

Which are Privately owned & open to the public

Are you really suggesting your local concert pub is not private property?

No I am not suggesting that. I want my local pub to be able to put up signs that are rascist as fuck and offend me. I dont approve of what theyre saying but ill defend their right to say it.

The 1964 civil rights act says that a private business, that is also open to the public, may not discriminate. You may still run a private club and discriminate. That means my corner pub does not have the right to choose to ban blacks, but you do have the right to ban blacks at the Elks Club.

What you fail to recognize is there is no legal difference between your place of business and your home. Both are considered "private property".

The difference is my home is not open to the public. Property rights do not imply discrimination in publicly open places.

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT A PUBLIC VENUE!

Right, its the private property owner's choice to open it to the public. If he chooses to; then he is subject to laws that regulate what society demands of a business open to the public. Open to the public is a very clear legal definition. Walmart cannot arrest you for trespassing unless there is a trespassing notice, because they are open to the public. This differs from my privately owned home where you can be arrested for trespassing without notice, since I never actually opened my home to the public.

If I own a restaurant, I am legally within my right to keep the doors locked and not let anybody in.

Right, you can choose to be open or closed to the public. If you want to close your doors to certain parts of the public, you need to classify yourself as a CLUB and not a PUBLIC VENUE. Then you can can close your doors to any race. Your doors need to be either open or closed. (and you still have the right to kick out anyone you want for ANY reason... except race)

Can we start talking about something that matters today? You know, like the 20% unemployment rate and that yesterday was the largest one-day drop in the DJIA in the past year. Stuff that matters, not distractions about philosophical discussions of 45 year old laws.

No, its a MJ forum from my understanding. We are discussing a pro MJ candidate and discussing a conflict of interest. You can go discuss those other things as much as you want, you chose to participate in this one. (PS the years 07-08 was the biggest drop)

In summary, the 1964 civil rights act simply says if you are a private business who chooses to classify yourself as open to the general public, that you must stick to the definition of general public.

 

[JackTheGrower]

More coverage on DemocracyNow.com May 21st show

 

[darrylRouson]

More coverage on DemocracyNow.com May 21st show

Reported as off topic. This isn't the place to discuss which form of government we think we should adopt. I'm out.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Reported as off topic. This isn't the place to discuss which form of government we think we should adopt. I'm out.

Sorry but DemocracyNow is a honourable news show. Leans left but so do I..


Oh I think we can safely say Rand Paul and this whole discussion is very much on topic.

It is very much about the eroding Middle Class and what people want to do about it.

I see it here. I like to power walk and there are farm roads I walk where I have been warned to stay off of them and away from areas even though it's a public street because the wealthy here are very afraid of the poor and want them far away from their homes. I am sure Rand Paul would support this as well..
Rand Paul supports poor people not leaving their Zone and certainly not being allowed into the Wealthy Zones or businesses where color race or economic background are considered a measure of a human being.

Rand Paul is for economic segregation as well as class segregation in the context of private property and public businesses.

Am I wrong?

 

[MarquisBlack]

The 1964 civil rights act says that a private business, that is also open to the public, may not discriminate. You may still run a private club and discriminate. That means my corner pub does not have the right to choose to ban blacks, but you do have the right to ban blacks at the Elks Club.

It turns out you're right about this. I've been reading on it and it's legally referred to as a "public accommodation".

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—

.....

(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;

Now the issue is not whether or not Paul's statements had standing in regards to the Civil Rights Act, as he did say that he disagrees with parts of it. (I'm assuming the part about classifying private property as a "public accommodation") It is now an issue as to whether or not his statements have a constitutional standing.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction bro. Alot of us admittedly are still learning. (And those that aren't learning, have got it in their heads that they know-it-all)

 

[MarquisBlack]

Double post I know, but I'd like to point out that this notion of Paul "backtracking" (from where I'm sitting/what I've read) is false. He simply went back and made it clear that he would not work to repeal the Civil Rights act. (Which I don't believe he said to begin with, correct me if I'm wrong, those words were put in his mouth during the media onslaught)

He stated in the initial Maddow interview that he is for alot of what is in the Civil Rights Act, like preventing institutions with Gov't funding (owned by the public) from discriminating. However, in hindsight, it seems like he was very clear about what part he saw as unconstitutional meddling, and that is the distinction of a private business as a public accommodation.

Very interesting debate, but I'm still leaning toward Rand on this one. I really can't see this dude as being racist. (Perhaps mistaken? I like to think the Paul's know a thing or two about our Constitution)

Could anyone help me dig up the history of the term "public accommodation" in American Law and/or any applicable Supreme Court cases? I'm googling my ass off so I'll let you guys know what I find.

 

[SpasticGramps]

These are the definitions of Democracy, and Republic. Regardless of what it's called, how can you argue that the US is not a blend of these two forms of gov't

From the mouth of the horse on progressive philosophy.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

He is implying Oligarchical rule. This was in 1913 mind you. We have only progressed since then, but progressed to what? Collectivism and endless wars I say. There are endless statements of warning's from past President's on the consequences of apathy to the government.

Iphones and big TV's don't make us smarter, just easier to control. Are we really to believe that the family's and system that controlled perception in 1913 just disappeared off the map? Does that strike as a reasonable assumption? That's you, your parent's, and grandma, maybe great grandma's generation. Maybe I missed where the revolution against Super-Nationalistic Capitalism happened because it kind of seems like we have progressed along the same lines since then. Al Capone called the stock market "a racket" in the 1920's. What's changed except for the fact that we are far, far more consolidated now than back then and in much more debt which only exasperates the situation?

Only the semantics IMO.

Empires always fall fighting wars they can't afford as the light burns out. Alexander the Great's empire couldn't conquer Afghanistan, the USSR couldn't either. Both died shortly after trying. Afghanistan is where empires go to die I'm sorry to say.

I'm rambling. I'll stop now lol. I'm

 

[Bill O'Reilly]

Basically restaurants are not considered completely "private" according to the Supreme Court. Because people can walk in and out freely and most restaurants and bars are semi-regulated they are deemed quasi-public.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Double post I know, but I'd like to point out that this notion of Paul "backtracking" (from where I'm sitting/what I've read) is false. He simply went back and made it clear that he would not work to repeal the Civil Rights act. (Which I don't believe he said to begin with, correct me if I'm wrong, those words were put in his mouth during the media onslaught)

He stated in the initial Maddow interview that he is for alot of what is in the Civil Rights Act, like preventing institutions with Gov't funding (owned by the public) from discriminating. However, in hindsight, it seems like he was very clear about what part he saw as unconstitutional meddling, and that is the distinction of a private business as a public accommodation.

Very interesting debate, but I'm still leaning toward Rand on this one. I really can't see this dude as being racist. (Perhaps mistaken? I like to think the Paul's know a thing or two about our Constitution)

Could anyone help me dig up the history of the term "public accommodation" in American Law and/or any applicable Supreme Court cases? I'm googling my ass off so I'll let you guys know what I find.

Absolutely. I doubt it would have come up on my radar is it were not for just how quick it became a dynamic thing. Three days of Democracynow coverage is impressive.


I'm still sorting out exactly what "Nerves" were excited in the political nervous system to gain such attention.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Basically restaurants are not considered completely "private" according to the Supreme Court. Because people can walk in and out freely and most restaurants and bars are semi-regulated they are deemed quasi-public.

No fight here just an attempt to contrast things some.

Would this "private Property and Segregation apply to whole tracts of land?

Could it be used to enforce barricades and fences against others ?

Could groups of "one race" conspire to deny access to areas of our country to other "races?"

I'm not claiming to understand the dynamics but this was a major stink-bomb media wise..

Better than good Republicans getting caught with Tracy Jackson who I think would be an interesting bed mate..


But I digress... Yes I am in favor of senators voting on pro-cannabis.

 

[Rainman]

Hey Hoosier!!! You are such a little tool! Why would you be trying to come at me like that when the last time you did it, you got your feelins hurt and almost cried like a little girl.I know you remember! You know I am right and the same folks( like you) who were screaming screw Obama and anyone in gov. are now all T-bagging the Tea baggers!!!!! How does that sweaty conservative sack feel against your 5 oclock shadow as you rub and carress?? Yeah you like it!! This is sooooo funny to watch you roaches scurry around trying to make sense of it all now that you got someone you think you can believe in. Too bad he openned his mouth too soon and now everyone knows the truth about him. What happened to that "all politicians are the same" stance you and your cronies adopted when the pseudo conservatives you voted for last time lost? Now you think you can vote in a bunch of even biger racists and ass backwards clowns who make Georgie look like a brain surgeon? All this talk of wake up liberals and pay attention to whats really going on!!! You and your kind are clowns and so shallow in your deep thought, that its easy to see why you would endorse Mr Paul. You see I am not a racists but a realist and you and the rest of your boys can talk outta the side of your mouths all you want but just like the politicians you talk so much shit about, you think America is falling for your scam. Guess what? We aint!

 

[ItsGrowTime]

The difference is my home is not open to the public. Property rights do not imply discrimination in publicly open places.

This statement right here is where the disconnect is. Your entire post is just noise to justify this single statement.

Legally, your home and your business are the same. Private property is private property, regardless of the intended use of the property. "Open to the public" is just a cliche somebody made up. It has no legal basis. There is no legal distinction between your home and your business. Rand's position is based 100% on this fact. If you can discriminate who comes into your home, how can you not discriminate who comes into your business? How hard is that to understand?

Your argument is simply "what you should or should not be able to do". Our argument is "it doesn't matter what you should or shouldn't be able to do, it's not how the Constitution was written and how that law of the land stands today." Very simple. Once again, there is no legal distinction between a house and a business. Both are equally "private property". Yours is an emotional argument. Ours is a logical one. It is not a racist statement. It is a statement on the realities of our current Constitutional legal system. Just because the law was passed 45 years ago does not mean the CRA was Constitutional.

Basically restaurants are not considered completely "private" according to the Supreme Court. Because people can walk in and out freely and most restaurants and bars are semi-regulated they are deemed quasi-public.

The Supreme Court makes bad and unconstitutional rulings all the time. This is just another one. The Constitution is clear.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/PropertyPrivacy/Property/PrivPropertyAndGovUnderConst-19950101.htm

The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people--including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners--even the government.

 

[Texicannibus]

People need to demand some things..

Strict term limits ammendment
balanced budget ammendment
A return to constitutional law and abandoning of case law as used today.

Those things would fundamentally change our country for the better imo... there are more things of course but its time we started demanding paticular changes. Im not sure how much of that agenda Rand Paul would be onboard with but I'd reckon a guess a bit more than anyone else running against him.

 

[Danks2005]

Hey Hoosier!!! You are such a little tool! Why would you be trying to come at me like that when the last time you did it, you got your feelins hurt and almost cried like a little girl.I know you remember! You know I am right and the same folks( like you) who were screaming screw Obama and anyone in gov. are now all T-bagging the Tea baggers!!!!! How does that sweaty conservative sack feel against your 5 oclock shadow as you rub and carress?? Yeah you like it!! This is sooooo funny to watch you roaches scurry around trying to make sense of it all now that you got someone you think you can believe in. Too bad he openned his mouth too soon and now everyone knows the truth about him. What happened to that "all politicians are the same" stance you and your cronies adopted when the pseudo conservatives you voted for last time lost? Now you think you can vote in a bunch of even biger racists and ass backwards clowns who make Georgie look like a brain surgeon? All this talk of wake up liberals and pay attention to whats really going on!!! You and your kind are clowns and so shallow in your deep thought, that its easy to see why you would endorse Mr Paul. You see I am not a racists but a realist and you and the rest of your boys can talk outta the side of your mouths all you want but just like the politicians you talk so much shit about, you think America is falling for your scam. Guess what? We aint!

We disagree and yet have 10 pages of civil discussion without personal attacks untill you came along. There is no need for that here.

 

[Rainman]

Dank2005 - Me and Hoosierdaddy have history and you are not aware of it so mind your biz or get caught up in it. My comments were addressed to one single person who came at me just like I knew he would and not yourself, so pay attention. What have is 10 pages of folks like yourself trying to drown out any dissention of thought so please dont try to say it has been civil kid. You coming to Hoosier's aid sounds just like what a T-Bagger would do. Anyone who has said anything against your hero Mr Paul has been gang up on by your boy instantly and called names but no oe can say anything back to his simple ass? But again whats weird is te list of people who were telling all the liberals 6 months ago that all politicians are the same are now the first ones on their knees in this thread waiting to get a sip of Randy tea! CLASSIC! Dank again you are welcome to jump into this and get a piece, but you will get the same treatment I give Hoosier. Your call.

 

[MarquisBlack]

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97&page=transcript

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:

[The phrasing "if its operations affect commerce" is especially worrisome and open-ended, though it is qualified by "which serves the public", another phrase that I need to dig up the history for]*

(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.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

This is the earliest mention I can find of the term "public accommodation". If this is in fact the origin of the term, Rand Paul was completely consistent in his statements. Now I gotta find out more about the term "open to the public". I can see why a constitutionalist might be concerned over such a gray area which deems private property "open to the public". If anyone could help me piece this together I would appreciate it.

Dank2005 - Me and Hoosierdaddy have history and you are not aware of it so mind your biz or get caught up in it. My comments were addressed to one single person who came at me just like I knew he would and not yourself, so pay attention. What have is 10 pages of folks like yourself trying to drown out any dissention of thought so please dont try to say it has been civil kid. You coming to Hoosier's aid sounds just like what a T-Bagger would do. Anyone who has said anything against your hero Mr Paul has been gang up on by your boy instantly and called names but no oe can say anything back to his simple ass? But again whats weird is te list of people who were telling all the liberals 6 months ago that all politicians are the same are now the first ones on their knees in this thread waiting to get a sip of Randy tea! CLASSIC! Dank again you are welcome to jump into this and get a piece, but you will get the same treatment I give Hoosier. Your call.

Oh no Dank, you better watch out or he'll call you a "tea-bagger" too. Try bringing something factual to the debate instead of name-calling. Your last few posts in this thread have been paragraphs full of nothing but emotion, are you a woman, by chance?

Edit: While Hoosier may be hotheaded, most of the people I see having a problem with him are mutually culpable.

 

[Danks2005]

I'm aware Hoosier can be hot headed but he has not stooped to name calling in this thread, all i ask is that you do the same. If your comment was directed to one person, why not send it in a pm, as nothing you said is of any help to this discussion.

Maybe we are attracted to an unconventional polititian, it's easy to do, as the conventional dems and republicans sure haven't been helping. Like I said, many of us have been conversing our disagreements without namecalling, why is it too much to ask the same of you.

If you address your opinion in a civil manner you may change minds, otherwise you put people on the defensive, and at that point nothing gets accomplished

 

[daves4usc]

Youre fooling yourselves if you think he will go against big pharma companies when it comes to the legalzation of pot. He is pro large business and the pharma companies will fight tooth and nail against it.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97&page=transcript

"commerce"

This is the earliest mention I can find of the term "public accommodation".

Just one in a long line of rulings from SCOTUS bastardizing the Interstate Commerce Clause. If not for the SCOTUS bad ruling on the ICC, the 10th Amendment would kick in and the Civil Rights Act would have violated it. "Discrimination" is a state issue under the 10th. It's amazing how so many Americans have gotten comfy with the notion of the Feds violating the 10th Amendment whenever they see fit. It's so common place now that it seems "normal", even though it's unconstitutional as can be.

 

[Rainman]

Dank as I said you can step in the middle or keep making comments that really have nothing to do with the thread. After reading what you have posted so far this should be a real easy choice even for you.

Marquis - So I gues its not cool for me to call names but you get to do it? Is that how this works? As for facts..... He thinks the BP oil thing is no big deal. He is a racists with racists views. He doesnt believe in the Disability act. Ohh and he turns around and flip flops almost as fast as you and some of the other conserves. Problem is real T baggers dont like voters like you anymore than they like the politicians you voted into offiice over the years. Thats the funny part. Wanting to be a part of a team that doesnt really want you. Bet that sounds like high school all over again. And all stated in my precious posts. Also just like Hoosier you were all about no party will help the common man a few months ago and now you are hanging from the t bag sack just like Hoosier! All you two clowns need now is Greenhead and Peanut Butter to show up and make it a party! You more than these other clowns should know better. So do I call you a turncoat, a hypocrite, or just another consevative sorebutt T bagger wannabe looking for absolution and a party since being cast out of politics by the last bum you and your cronies voted into office? Hummmm so many choices. As for being all emotion and am I a woman? Why dont you and I get in a room together with our ladies and see who has a threesome and who holds the camera? Im free all weekend. Now as for this being a civil thread......... here is Hoosier reacting to comments made by others.............

Hoosier
You bring in a quote from another thread trying to show that I have no credibility just because of the words I used...but you don't provide what I was responding to. In any event, you are presenting dumb shit arguments. Try hitting on the topic a time or two and see how your words shake out. I'm betting not much more than the other knee jerk jerks.

Hoosier
And can I assume that you also subscribe to lies, misrepresentations and bullshit to go along with heavy servings of squelching personal freedoms and liberty? Is that why you tried to belittle my reply to kallicokitty? Do you also think the way it does?

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy
I see that you are a big talker hiding behind your computer screen. I highly doubt you run your cocksucker like that to people in real life. I for sure know you don't run it like that in person, not without some dental assistance being needed to get your tooth worked on.

Hoosier
And some, like coot, are trying to throw stones at a man and charging him being a bigot..when the truth is Paul is not being a bigot by his stance on the civil rights legislation issue. Not at all. His reasons are completely unrelated to racism. But, coot doesn't get that...and to make it worse on himself he show us that HE is indeed a bigot that has no fucking clue about people. Just about as rude as it gets...bigoted and rude. And I am just about certain a fucking racist to boot.
Amazing how you folks (read; fucks) show your colors.

A prime example of the ignorance that costs this nation so dearly.

Hoosier
Slappyjack, you are so biased it stinks. And it wouldn't matter what demonizing spin the media placed on the man, you would cheer it along just as blindly as you are now.

Simpletons that are not worried about the facts probably need to hear no more. And I need to hear no more to figure out that you are a bigoted hypocrite.

Very weak stance....albeit typical.



Yeah very civil and factual! So I guess I can assume there wont be anymore complaining about my language from people in this thread cause this aint burger king and you dont get it your way.