View Single Post
Old 02-29-2012, 06:50 PM   #335
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iella View Post
The Bill of Rights lays out a lot of rights that are protected under law. Nowhere is there a "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want." The federal government exists to protect those rights that are specifically defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do other rights exist? Yes, that's why the 9th Amendment is there. But again, I don't see "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want" to be one of those fundamental, inalienable rights.
You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution. It is up to the Supreme court to determine who is a federally protected class under the constitution. Furthermore, the constitution does specifically say the federal government can regulate business as much as it feels like under the interstate commerce clause. Hate to burst your bubble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iella View Post
The Constitution was put into place to protect citizens from an overreaching federal government, not to give the government purchase to "protect" us from each other by regulating how we think and behave. Disputes between people or groups of people can and ought to be mostly regulated at the state or even (preferably) local level.
Actually the constitution was put in place to give the federal government more power. Prior to the creation of the constitution there were the Articles of the Confederation. The federal government was extremely weak and the U.S. almost became a failed state. That is the whole reasoning behind the creation of the Constitution: to strengthen the federal government. And you want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iella View Post
Obviously, this is a conservative interpretation. We can agree to disagree.
It has nothing to do with a conservative or liberal interpretation. It has to do with historical fact and historical fantasy. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Last edited by SeanL; 02-29-2012 at 06:54 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote