Just another unconstitutional fed overeach?

[ugonow]

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."--Ron Paul to the Speaker of the House.

[billisonboard]

Feb 15, 2011 15:27:28 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."

Certainly looks to be an inappropriate posting of someone's little speech without proper credit being given but I don't see it as "unconstitutional fed overeach?"

[floridayankee]

Feb 15, 2011 15:39:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Certainly looks to be an inappropriate posting of someone's little speech without proper credit being given but I don't see it as "unconstitutional fed overeach?"

It's old news Bills. It was a Ron Paul's address on why he voted no to HR 676 in June 2004. You can read the whole speech here:

trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/2010/05/20/rand-paul-ron-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/

[ugonow]

I just thought it was relevant to bring up considering all the other programs that are being spotlighted as unconstitutional these days. Maybe we should wipe them all off the books and start with a clean slate?

[billisonboard]

Feb 15, 2011 15:52:52 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I just thought it was relevant ...

Which is cool but it is appropriate to give credit. Also, it would be nice to let us know that it isn't a current event item.

[henryclay]

No credit ?

I see credit. At least I think I see credit. Isn't the last words in the post good enough as credit?

Or am I missing somethng on giving credit? If so, would somebody educate me on giving credit? . . . . Please?

[billisonboard]

Feb 15, 2011 19:34:53 GMT -5 henryclay said:

No credit ?

I see credit. At least I think I see credit. Isn't the last words in the post good enough as credit?

Or am I missing somethng on giving credit? If so, would somebody educate me on giving credit? . . . . Please?

Here it the answer for you henryclay:
One of the [glow=red,2,300]beautiful[/glow]

things with this new board is that it shows the time when edits are made to a message. Unfortunately it doesn't show what is edited but does reflect that an edit was made and when. Clears up little misunderstandings like this one if you pay attention to them.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 15, 2011 15:27:28 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."--Ron Paul to the Speaker of the House.

"The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."--Ron Paul to the Speaker of the House."

I'll take a a few less rights if it means those who actions "decent people" {who are those decent people} find abhorrent are stopped from useing the laws they come up with to keep those they really wish wearn't here down and out..I can live with that one.
Civil rights act 1964 a good beginning, a good year, nice vintage, lots of sun and warm rains, made everything seem brighter and more alive.

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 15, 2011 19:54:06 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Feb 15, 2011 15:27:28 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."--Ron Paul to the Speaker of the House.

"The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."--Ron Paul to the Speaker of the House."

I'll take a a few less rights if it means those who actions "decent people" {who are those decent people} find abhorrent are stopped from useing the laws they come up with to keep those they really wish wearn't here down and out..I can live with that one.
Civil rights act 1964 a good beginning, a good year, nice vintage, lots of sun and warm rains, made everything seem brighter and more alive.

The question would be, who is the descent and who isn't? You might be sacrificing your rights and being manipulated to think something is right/wrong at the same time. Are you going to question on what your rights are being sacrificed for every time or are you going to let somebody else judge that could careless about your rights and more about theirs?

[ugonow]

Bills,I wasn't trying to decieve anyone or "confuse them". H 676 was not the point of my post. It is just that Pauls argument is the strongest one I have seen as to the CRA's unconstitutionality,and thought I would post his feelings on it and see if others see his logic. There is a lot of talk of proposals or legislations having to pass the constitutional test to be deemed legal legislation. There was a thread on Senator Lee's stance child labor laws being unconstitutional,there is talk of medicare,medicaid,SS being unconstitutional,etc...Just wondering how people felt.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

It's an interesting argument. Personally, I feel that if you have private property and want to rent it out...you should have the right rent it out to anybody you want, and at the same time you should be able to not rent to anybody you don't wan to rent it. I'm sure discrimination exist...more than some think and less than others like to claim. Ron Paul made some good points on the issue IMO.

I do think there is something wrong when a person has to actually think about the race, gender, or whatever else of the person before making a decision in order to make sure it doesn't appear like they are discriminating.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 16, 2011 8:02:19 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Feb 15, 2011 19:54:06 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

"The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."--Ron Paul to the Speaker of the House."

I'll take a a few less rights if it means those who actions "decent people" {who are those decent people} find abhorrent are stopped from useing the laws they come up with to keep those they really wish wearn't here down and out..I can live with that one.
Civil rights act 1964 a good beginning, a good year, nice vintage, lots of sun and warm rains, made everything seem brighter and more alive.

The question would be, who is the descent and who isn't? You might be sacrificing your rights and being manipulated to think something is right/wrong at the same time. Are you going to question on what your rights are being sacrificed for every time or are you going to let somebody else judge that could careless about your rights and more about theirs?

One can all ways be manipulated, in fact many of us are. Today with the media being what it is and communication , the web, so important in ones life, never anything like it in the past.

Less people taking and reading a daily paper, headlines first page stories available yes but all those as important middle pages ones not seen.

I am guilty myself, recent occurrence, trying it out, the lack of, so far, getting use to it, yet there still is common sense and what is correct and what isn't, see 1964 civil right act ..a no brainer, and for those who questioned it, well.
To me , the same , Patriot act, if one believes we are at war, and has had the experience of what that entails, if a right is , if not gone but tweaked to let those who fight those wars do their job better, than I will live with the tweak.
Keeps my kids, grand kids, me , no bi deal, and country safer, I really have no problem.

Not saying I am correct on the subject, but the way I feel.

I could say , don't sweat the little things, but realize , not a small thing, I am not a complete idiot, but I am aware and am very realistic, so...