3 ms·
Civil rights act as imposed on private entities is blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment IMO. I think current SCOTUS may have the cajones
by beaglesss 2y ago
Civil rights act as imposed on private entities is blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment IMO. I think current SCOTUS may have the cajones to actually nix it.
- matrix87 2y agothis scotus has the political orientation needed to do something like that OTOH, it flies in the face of the classic conservative "letting corporations do whatever they want" attitude, so it might be a mixed bag
- underseacables 2y agoThat is blatantly asinine. Are you saying that a hotel should be able to discriminate against someone based on their race?
- beaglesss 2y agoIn intrastate commerce I see no reason how the feds can constitutionally stop them.
- underseacables 2y agoBanking. Money crosses state lines which makes it fair game under the commerce clause. There's only 50+ years of court cases on the subject.
- hackeraccount 2y agoBy that logic is there anything that the Federal government can't regulate? If that's the case why is the commerce clause in the Constitution at all?
- beaglesss 2y agoYes under the commerce clause in recent history has been interpreted to mean interstate commerce is something as simple as growing a weed plant on your own land and smoking it. The precious CRA is an oft cited law as to why we need expansive interpretation of that clause (as without it CRA as we know it would be finished), the sooner SCOTUS crushes the CRA the sooner we can finally crush the rest of the civil rights violating overreaches of the prior commerce clause interpretations.