The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Sparko]

Stop lying about me Tass, and it is not a idiosyncratic interpretation it is what the law says as your OWN link demonstrated.

But but he can't be mistaken! He used google!!

[seer]

But but he can't be mistaken! He used google!!

I'm done with him...

[Sparko]

I'm done with him...

But wait, there's more!

[Mountain Man]

That doesn't even make sense Tassman. He merely corrected your misunderstanding about the Civil Rights Act, which others have done previously, and each and every time your response was just just repeat your previous error word for word. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" doesn't change the fact that you are WRONG. Repeating your wrongness doesn't make it right. It just makes you look ignorant and a waste of time to even debate with.

It's a constant source of amusement when non-Americans think they know our laws better than we do only for them to wallow in their ignorance.

[Tassman]

That doesn't even make sense Tassman. He merely corrected your misunderstanding about the Civil Rights Act, which others have done previously, and each and every time your response was just just repeat your previous error word for word. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" doesn't change the fact that you are WRONG. Repeating your wrongness doesn't make it right. It just makes you look ignorant and a waste of time to even debate with.

The error is seer's as he, as usual, tries to make texts mean what he wants them to mean. The intention of the Civil Rights Act is perfectly clear.

"Long title:

An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Enacted by the 88th United States Congress

Effective July 2, 1964"

[Sparko]

The error is seer's as he, as usual, tries to make texts mean what he wants them to mean. The intention of the Civil Rights Act is perfectly clear.

"Long title:

An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Enacted by the 88th United States Congress

Effective July 2, 1964"

There you go again, merely repeating yourself. Your OWN previous link said you were wrong. Posting a title of the CRA doesn't prove your point.

[Doug Shaver]

Are you saying that the Court can not violate the Constitution?

I am saying that the question is unanswerable without reference to people's interpretations of the Constitution. I am not an Aristotelian. I do not believe that any text in any language has any meaning independent of the thinking of the community using that language.

It certainly could happen that the court would say the Constitution means X while 90 percent of the American people said it meant the contrary of X. If that were to happen, then our democracy would be in serious trouble of a kind that could not be solved merely by continuing a debate about the meaning of the Constitution.

[seer]

I am saying that the question is unanswerable without reference to people's interpretations of the Constitution. I am not an Aristotelian. I do not believe that any text in any language has any meaning independent of the thinking of the community using that language.

Well that brings us back to the Founders. What did the Founders intend, and there we have plenty of extra constitutional writing to figure it out. It really is not a mystery. If I follow your logic then it seems that everything would be up in the air with little or no firm understanding of anything.

It certainly could happen that the court would say the Constitution means X while 90 percent of the American people said it meant the contrary of X. If that were to happen, then our democracy would be in serious trouble of a kind that could not be solved merely by continuing a debate about the meaning of the Constitution.

What if a majority agreed with a Court ruling that we actually don't have the right of petition of there isn't the freedom of the press? Is it now true - that there is no Constitutional right to either?

[Doug Shaver]

What if a majority agreed with a Court ruling that we actually don't have the right of petition of there isn't the freedom of the press? Is it now true - that there is no Constitutional right to either?

Then my opinion would be irrelevant, but I would be of the opinion that (a) I was no longer living in a free nation and that (b) most of my fellow citizens had taken leave of their senses.

[seer]

Then my opinion would be irrelevant, but I would be of the opinion that (a) I was no longer living in a free nation and that (b) most of my fellow citizens had taken leave of their senses.

Except no matter what the Court or the majority said there would still be a Constitutional right to both the free press and right of petition.

[Tassman]

There you go again, merely repeating yourself. Your OWN previous link said you were wrong. Posting a title of the CRA doesn't prove your point.

Actually no, this is the point. The Civil Rights Act is perfectly clear in providing “injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations”.

[Sparko]

Actually no, this is the point. The Civil Rights Act is perfectly clear in providing “injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations”.

[Doug Shaver]

Except no matter what the Court or the majority said there would still be a Constitutional right to both the free press and right of petition.

As I said, I'm not an Aristotelian. Just as I believe words have no meaning that is independent of usage, I don't believe rights have any existence independently of human cognition.

[seer]

As I said, I'm not an Aristotelian. Just as I believe words have no meaning that is independent of usage, I don't believe rights have any existence independently of human cognition.

So human rights are relative?

[Tassman]

So human rights are relative?

Historically they have been relative and internally inconsistent. Once upon a time they allowed for slavery, stoning of immoral women, polygamy and racism etc etc. Not any more...at least in the developed countries.