OT New NFL Kneeling Rule

[PtldPlatypus]

The commerce clause, perhaps?

barfo

The commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate trade--it does not itself regulate trade in any way.

 

[barfo]

The commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate trade--it does not itself regulate trade in any way.

I see your point, but it could just as well have said "Congress shall make no law regulating trade", but instead they chose to enable regulation.

barfo

 

[BBert]

I would say that the constitution is all about the government, and was never intended to be anything but about the government. How the government is organized, what its functions are, how each area interacts, who can participate in it, and--in the case of the bill of rights--what it is not permitted to do. All the rights enumerated in the constitution are specifically to protect people from governmental overreach.

In my mind, the reasons for the bill of rights to apply to the government and not employers owe to the many differences between the two:

• An individual can choose from many different employers, but it's much more difficult to choose your country
• An individual is an employee only during work hours, but is under the rule of the government 24/7
• An individual is an employee only during their working years, but is under the rule of the government their entire life
• An individual is an employee only if they choose to work, but is under the rule of government whether they like it or not ("sovereign citizen" idiocy notwithstanding).
• Employers can also be further regulated/limited by the government, but the government is limited by...itself.

I would say that it is a mischaracterization to claim that companies don't have to follow the constitution, because the constitution was never meant to govern businesses. It would be akin to claiming that a parent is violating their child's constitutional rights punishing them without a trial by jury. The government has, separate from the constitution, established departments to govern businesses' practices and parental conduct, but the constitution itself does not apply to anything other than the government itself.

This. The Constitution specifically governs only the structures of, the powers of, and the limits on government. It does not apply to private actions, and I'm glad. We have more than enough laws regulating the actions of people and private business.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I see your point, but it could just as well have said "Congress shall make no law regulating trade", but instead they chose to enable regulation.

barfo

Sure, it could have, but obviously the framers thought it appropriate for the government to be able to regulate interstate and international trade. And apparently not to permit the federal government to regulate intrastate trade, since it was not expressly mentioned.

Regardless, the constitution itself does not govern businesses, which was my only point.

 

[BBert]

The commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate trade--it does not itself regulate trade in any way.

Exactly. Congress passes lots and lots of laws and regulations that affect us. So do local governments. They do so using powers either provided to the federal government, or reserved for state (and local) government, by the constitution.

For example, State labor laws limit certain employer rights, and provide for certain employee rights, but those regulations have nothing to do with the constitution.

Same with landlord/tenant laws. Non-discrimination in housing laws. Etc.

Those are not constitutional rights. The Constitution simply empowers governments to enact them.

 

[dviss1]

OK--would you be willing to point to anything in the constitution itself that supports that contention? I'm always interested in considering alternate perspectives.

You forget about the commerce clause??

Section 8.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[dviss1]

That kind of is your logic tho... you know that kneeling offends a bunch of people and you say fuck those people it’s the players rights...

I'm sorry,

Black lives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> White feelings.

 

[dviss1]

This. The Constitution specifically governs only the structures of, the powers of, and the limits on government. It does not apply to private actions, and I'm glad. We have more than enough laws regulating the actions of people and private business.

No. This is completely wrong. Powers of Congress give them the right to regulate commerce.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

That's not my logic but you'll like to paint that narrative.

I thought it was bullshit that google fired the guy. It was their right to do so but I didn't really speak to that. I did mention boycotting them. You didn't seem to care about his constitutional rights when you commented, that much is obvious.

http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/go...diversity-of-thoughts-political-ideas.318352/

 

[Gronk Brady]

I'm sorry,

Black lives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> White feelings.

They are not mutually exclusive... man, you must really hate all white people... so sad

 

[dviss1]

The commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate trade--it does not itself regulate trade in any way.

Right but it still confirms what I said. Private entities are supposed to be governed by us. The constitution gives our representatives that power.

They have the power to say that companies cannot drug test as it's a violation of our 4th amendment right.

They have the power to regulate these companies they just don't and we know why.

 

[Gronk Brady]

Right but it still confirms what I said. Private entities are supposed to be governed by us. The constitution gives our representatives that power.

They have the power to say that companies cannot drug test as it's a violation of our 4th amendment right.

They have the power to regulate these companies they just don't and we know why.

So you want companies not to drug test now... wow

 

[barfo]

Sure, it could have, but obviously the framers thought it appropriate for the government to be able to regulate interstate and international trade. And apparently not to permit the federal government to regulate intrastate trade, since it was not expressly mentioned.

Regardless, the constitution itself does not govern businesses, which was my only point.

Except that corporations are now considered to have many of the same constitutional rights as individuals ("corporations are people too").

barfo

 

[dviss1]

They are not mutually exclusive... man, you must really hate all white people... so sad

You sound like an idiot.

 

[dviss1]

So you want companies not to drug test now... wow

Yes. I want that to be illegal. It should be.

 

[Gronk Brady]

You sound like an idiot.

Dude, every other thing you say is anti white people... you just group everyone together... every time you get backed into a corner and are losing your argument you pull the race card

 

[dviss1]

Dude, every other thing you say is anti white people... you just group everyone together... every time you get backed into a corner and are losing your argument you pull the race card

I've already dealt with your type here. Saying the same cliche bullshit. It's nothing new. Wash rinse repeat.

Bottom line is being pro black doesn't make you anti white and you don't know me.

Your opinion can suck it.

 

[Gronk Brady]

Yes. I want that to be illegal. It should be.

Nice... we should have a godless scociety, with no rules, boundaries, regulations and accountability... everyone should get free handouts... a few more years under that liberal mentality and the movie the Purge will become a reality