(no subject)
30/10/11 11:40![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613
Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.
This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.
Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.
This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 31/10/11 23:50 (UTC)Okay, where? Where are these rights, what specifically are they?
Right. So they're public transactions. Thanks.
....no. They're distinctly private transactions. If TCPIP-TV is up for sale, and I purchase it, this wasn't a public transaction.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 00:20 (UTC)For example (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsumerrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_182935).
If TCPIP-TV is up for sale, and I purchase it, this wasn't a public transaction.
Er, yes it is. This a very good example of the conceptual difficulty you're having in this discussion.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 00:21 (UTC)Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 00:33 (UTC)Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 00:25 (UTC)So they're created out of whole cloth without any real basis?
Er, yes it is. This a very good example of the conceptual difficulty you're having in this discussion.
How is it a public transaction?
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 00:31 (UTC)I would have thought you were well aware of the requirements for a free market transaction. Apparently I was mistaken.
How is it a public transaction?
It is carried out with legal tender using public laws regarding trading. But I've mentioned this in the past, and clearly it is a conceptual problem you're having here.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 01:14 (UTC)I believe I am. Maybe you can explain where I'm incorrect, or what you believe such a transaction is.
It is carried out with legal tender using public laws regarding trading. But I've mentioned this in the past, and clearly it is a conceptual problem you're having here.
"Public tender" is merely a government-issued representation of private wealth. "Public laws regarding trading" largely have no place in the US Constitutional situation we're discussing here. That may be part of the disconnect.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 03:43 (UTC)Good, then you should be able to see how they are embodied in those consumer rights.
"Public tender" is merely a government-issued representation of private wealth.
Er, no it isn't. Public tender also includes public wealth and also - and most importantly - the legal infrastructure for trades to occur.
"Public laws regarding trading" largely have no place in the US Constitutional situation we're discussing here.
I think the enumerated powers and specifically the "necessary and proper" clause makes this pretty clear.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 11:44 (UTC)That a government has conjured up so-called "consumer rights" does not mean that they actually exist in some form that trumps freedom of association.
Er, no it isn't. Public tender also includes public wealth and also - and most importantly - the legal infrastructure for trades to occur.
Legal tender offers no real legal infrastructure, it's just something that's provided to help pay debts. This topic is a US-centric one - our legal tender rules are finite and clear in our Constitution.
I think the enumerated powers and specifically the "necessary and proper" clause makes this pretty clear.
You're right, it does - and there's nothing about "public laws regarding trading" in a commerce situation unless the transaction is crossing state lines.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 20:26 (UTC)Not relevant.
Legal tender offers no real legal infrastructure, it's just something that's provided to help pay debts.
That's not quite true; the entire trading infrastructure is based around the use of legal tender.
You're right, it does - and there's nothing about "public laws regarding trading"
I think you should talk to some US constitutional lawyers about the 'necessary and proper' clause.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 20:33 (UTC)How so?
That's not quite true; the entire trading infrastructure is based around the use of legal tender.
If legal tender disappears, does the trading infrastructure as well?
I think you should talk to some US constitutional lawyers about the 'necessary and proper' clause.
I have. You'll have to show what powers specifically allow for what you claim.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 21:53 (UTC)Hey, the onus is on you to show it, not me. You're making the proposition that freedom of association is somehow relevant.
If legal tender disappears, does the trading infrastructure as well?
The legal trading infrastructure does.
I have.
Really? Name them.
Re: Public and Private Discrimination
Date: 1/11/11 21:57 (UTC)Well, you're the one saying it's not relevant. The right of people to peaceably assemble is a Constitutionally-protected right, so you seem to believe otherwise.
The legal trading infrastructure does.
Barter is illegal trading?
Really? Name them.
Not without their permission I won't. Of course, if you know of some powers that exist where it's "necessary and proper" to regulate all transactions, I'd love to see them.