5 ms·

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

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?

beaeglebeached 3y ago
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.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  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.
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    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.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      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.
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        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.
- whycome 3y ago
  > 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."
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    Right. People or states. Not congress.
    - olliej 3y ago
      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.
- jewayne 3y ago
  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.
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    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.
    - jewayne 3y ago
      "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." And I know you won't get that, either.
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        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...
- salawat 3y ago
  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.
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    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.

beaeglebeached 3y ago

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.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
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.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  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.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    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.
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      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.
whycome 3y ago
> 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."
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  Right. People or states. Not congress.
  - olliej 3y ago
    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.
jewayne 3y ago
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.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  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.
  - jewayne 3y ago
    "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." And I know you won't get that, either.
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      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...
salawat 3y ago
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.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  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.