Genetic Discrimination: Unfair or Natural?

Time ^ | May. 08, 2008 | MICHAEL KINSLEY

[forkinsocket]

Last week, with little attention or fanfare, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 414 to 1 to outlaw genetic discrimination. The only dissenter was the irascible libertarian Ron Paul. The Senate passed the same bill unanimously, and President Bush is ready to sign it. The bill tells employers and insurance companies that they may not use the results of genetic tests in choosing their employees and customers. One purpose of the bill is to encourage genetic testing. But the more important reason for it is to uphold a sense of fairness. Just as the law forbids discrimination against a person because she is black or a woman, it will henceforth forbid discrimination against her because she carries a gene that makes her more likely than average to get cancer. And the logic is similar: Why should she be punished for something completely beyond her control?

That's a good instinct, and this new weapon in the arsenal of equality is a good thing. But how far should we take it? This law forbids the use of genetic information garnered in blood tests. But your genes affect your life in many ways. To avoid all the controversy around the concept of "intelligence," let's consider a slightly different concept called "talent." Is it unfair that Yo-Yo Ma can play cello better than I can? Or that people hire Frank Gehry instead of me when they want a beautiful building, or that Warren Buffett is a better stock picker? Sure, it's unfair. And it's unfair in precisely the same way the results of a genetic test are: my lack of talent at playing the cello is something I was born with and beyond my control. Could I have overcome my lack of talent through discipline and hard work?

[forkinsocket]

.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Wow. Nice Straw Man in the second paragraph.

[messierhunter]

It’s insane; determinations of talent are not genetic tests, nor is the reverse true. A genetic test may be able to reveal potential in some cases, but it is not able to tell if you have actually capitalized on that potential. The truth of the matter shows precisely why we must not allow companies to judge people based on their genetics. It would further the new age of eugenics and set the stage for abortions based on “genetic potential,” not just genetic disease. I’m not terribly surprised that a racist like Paul would vote against it.

[militem]

I thought it was genetics that proved we are all the same, that is, we all descend from ancestors in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genographic_Project

The view that race is an illusion is based on genetics, therfore an individualist would be more likely to support that, not a racist. But you obviously hate Ron Paul so I won’t let reason stop you.

[traviskicks]

The only dissenter was the irascible libertarian Ron Paul.

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.

[pupdog]

Last week, with little attention or fanfare, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 414 to 1 to outlaw genetic discrimination. The only dissenter was the irascible libertarian Ron Paul.

Beyond the hideous and nightmarish extensions of where this kind of logic could lead us that I'm sure others will point out, I'll only ask exactly the question Paul would ask (and probably did), since he will likely wind up being a centerpiece of the discussion:

Where is this power granted to the federal government in the Constitution?

[superfluousdude]

Remember the movie Gattaca?

[superfluousdude]

[knarf]

" .. and this new weapon in the arsenal of .. "

Let's see nowwwww ....

Not everyone gets a complete physical, nor enters therapy, nor submits an app. for conceal carry ... you know ... and your info disappears? ...

But almost everyone gets/has a job ........ !

And of course .... no, no no ... you may not data base that information Mr/Ms employer ... it's against the law.

[murphE]

The only dissenter was the irascible libertarian Ron Paul.

That ol' wascally wabbit.

[messierhunter]

Just because credible geneticists tell you that race is an illusion does not mean that eugenicists will not pick and choose genetic "ideas" in order to further their cause. The only reasons for allowing the corporate discrimation of people based on their genes stems from racist and eugencially derived ideas.

Don't give me that "he just wants everyone to be free to do whatever they want" crap. In order for that to be true he'd have to be an advocate of true anarchy, where your "freedom" allows you to infringe on the rights of others without intervention. You have the freedom to think whatever you want about other races or people with different genes than you, but you shouldn't have the right to deny them employment or insurance based on those prejudices, regardless of how "fact based" the genetic discrimination is.

What we have here is yet another ronpaulogist who wishes to excuse his racism by saying that we all have common ancestors so it's not really racism, it's just genetic profiling. Frankly I don't give a damn whether it's eugenics or racism, they're both forms of discrimination based on the things you were born with, and they often go hand in hand. Paul himself has made some pretty outrageous racist statements that he later denied making, he has a history with this garbage so it's not "unreasonable" to attribute his lone dissenting vote to his extremist racist agenda.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ron Paul on carjacking - it's the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."


He claims he didn't write those things. So instead of being a racist he claims he just surrounds himself with racists. Similarly Obama has claimed he "never saw the survey" that clearly stated his real position on gun control. We know Obama definately lied about that because his handwriting was on the survey on one of the pages. Unfortunately, we can't know the same about Paul for sure, but it seems damn incompetent of him to be allowing his staffers to publish things in his name sight unseen multiple times without even getting the name of the writer. Frankly, I don't believe his claim that he had no idea what was being published, and since he can't even name a name he's complicit in covering for the racist behind it, whether it's him or not. He's stormfront's favorite politician and refuses to return the money he's received from racists like them. You have to ask yourself, what do they know that we don't, or rather, what are they willing to believe about him that we aren't? It's no different than the issue of Hamas supporting Obama. If you have an issue with Obama because of the latter, you ought to have an issue with Paul because of the former. Personally, I have issues with both of them for both reasons.

[messierhunter]

Try the equal protection clause, as currently interpreted by SCOTUS. According to SCOTUS, it also gave congress the power to pass the civil rights act of 1964, and since that forbids the discrimination of people based on race, it is not a stretch to say that congress has the power to forbid discrimination based on other genetically-determined factors unless there is a compelling business reason (like hiring a person with a disability in a position whose responsibilities they cannot fulfill because of that disability). The chance that the person is genetically prone to a problem later on that could cost the company more in health insurance doesn’t sound like a compelling enough business reason to me.

[timm22]

You have the freedom to think whatever you want about other races or people with different genes than you, but you shouldn't have the right to deny them employment or insurance based on those prejudices, regardless of how "fact based" the genetic discrimination is.

Why not?

Isn't the "employment" owned by the employer, and the insurance owned by the insurer?

Do you believe people have a "right" to employment or a "right" to insurance?

[pupdog]

Try the equal protection clause, as currently interpreted by SCOTUS. According to SCOTUS, it also gave congress the power to pass the civil rights act of 1964

In other words, in the interpretation of activist courts. "Equal protection under the law" in my world has never meant, and still means nothing more than that, not "equality of results in every human situation". Sorry, I know of that clause, I never agreed with that interpretation remotely, so if that's the best we've got, then IMO, even if you only considered Constitutional reasons, Paul voted correctly.

Anti-discrimination laws in general is one of the most anti-free-market concepts in existence. All choice is based on discrimination. The concept of some outside party trying to discern what is "good" and "bad" discrimination has never been anything more than absurd.

If we hadn't already gotten to the point where hiring anyone was such a legal landmine of lawsuits waiting to happen every time an employer breathed wrong that it's not even worth it anymore unless you have a legal team the size of Xerxes's army, this will handily take care of that.

[Eric Blair 2084]

As long as they don’t smoke. In that case you can discriminate against them all you want.

Don’t you dare discriminate against someone whose parents were so retarded they should never have reproduced. I’ve seen some of these people, they just shoot holes in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. I’m a Darwin natural selection, survival of the fittest adherent, but then I see some people....makes me wonder....maybe I’m wrong and Darwin was wrong.

[militem]

Brevity is the soul of wit. Welcome to FR

[messierhunter]

Hate to burst the bubble, but a congressman is not above SCOTUS, unless they're working to pass a constitutional amendment. You don't have to like their interpretation, but their interpretation stands and they are the ones who must decide what is unconstitutional. Clearly their rulings show that this law would be constitutional, so it is not up to Mr. Paul to decide whether genetic discrimination is constitutional or not. He's a congressman, not a judge.

If you want to nitpick, the equal protection clause is only half the equation, the other half is the commerce clause, which gives congress power over interstate commerce. Hiring practices and insurance definately fall into that category.

[messierhunter]

I wasn’t trying to be witty, I was being thorough. I hope I covered everything, because you can always count on a paulogist to nitpick.

[messierhunter]

Well folks, I guess we should just let people discriminate against black people if they want to. Even if the discriminated can prove their case they should get nothing. Wonderful, I think we just regressed FR to the late 19th century.

You're trying to use a frakking strawman here, I never said you had a "right" to employment. I said you don't have the right to abuse other people with your "rights." Discriminating against someone for reasons such as race that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the job itself is not the right of the employer. That doesn't mean the same thing as having a right to employment, it just means that your employer does not has a right to discriminate on the basis of things which have nothing to do with the job. "Affirmitive action" is an example of believing in a "right to employment" by forcing companies to fill quotas regardless of job qualifications, but that's not what I'm advocating.

I thought most Freepers were against allowing racist discrimination, maybe I was wrong about that.

[r9etb]

Genetic discrimination, eh"

Well, take your pick:

[Gondring]

What’s today’s flavor?

[messierhunter]

Strawman, we’re not talking about outlawing discrimination of the hiring of actors based on physical appearance, even if there’s an underlying genetic cause for an abnormality. You don’t need to have run a genetic test on her to know that Catherine Zeta Jones is pretty. Discrimination based on job qualifications (in the case of acting, appearance counts) is not at jeopardy. Making a judgement about a person’s appearance is not a genetic test, even if their appearance is largely due to genetic factors, and in the case of acting such judgement is necessary.

[r9etb]

Making a judgement about a person’s appearance is not a genetic test, even if their appearance is largely due to genetic factors, and in the case of acting such judgement is necessary.

The point was merely this: you don't need a "test" to practice genetic discrimination. We all do it, every day, in various ways. Bosses tend to be tall -- the higher up in a company, the taller the boss. Good-looking people tend to get paid more. Serious sports ... well, those are pretty much all about genetic discrimination.

Aside from that, you took my comment WAY too seriously.

[timm22]

...You're trying to use a frakking strawman here, I never said you had a "right" to employment. I said you don't have the right to abuse other people with your "rights."

How does genetic or racial discrimination in hiring decisions "abuse" anyone? Unless a person can somehow prove that they are entitled to a job- a concept you seem to deny- how are they harmed when they are denied the job on the basis of race?

Let me put it this way. Right now I don't employ anyone. I'm not giving *anyone* a chance to work for me, but as far as I know I'm not abusing anyone's rights by denying them employment.

In a few years, I might decide to start a business (a mall kiosk). I could choose to work at the kiosk myself, or hire someone to work there on my behalf. If I choose to work there myself, and deny *anyone* the opportunity to work there, then I'm still not harming anyone.

Let's say I do choose to hire a worker for my kiosk, but I only will consider redheads for the job. All non-redheads are in exactly the same position as they were before. They have just as many employment options as they did before I started my business and before I decided to hire someone. The only thing that's changed is that redheads now have one more option when it comes to finding a job.

So how have the non-redheads been "abused" by my decision to discriminate?

Discriminating against someone for reasons such as race that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the job itself is not the right of the employer. "Affirmitive action" is an example of believing in a "right to employment" by forcing companies to fill quotas regardless of job qualifications, but that's not what I'm advocating.

I don't believe you are an affirmative action advocate, and I understand the differences between AA and anti-discrimination law. I do think both concepts involve an underlying belief in a "right to employment", though it is more pronounced when it comes to AA.

I thought most Freepers were against allowing racist discrimination, maybe I was wrong about that.

Don't worry, I'm part of a small and reviled minority on this site when it comes to this issue.

I shouldn't have to make this disclaimer, but sadly it is often necessary and time-saving on these threads: I am morally opposed to racial discrimination. I also think it is really stupid for a business to treat employees or customers differently solely based on race. But I don't think fighting discrimination in the private sector is a legitimate activity for government. Not everything that is moral should be made into a law.

[pupdog]

Hate to burst the bubble, but a congressman is not above SCOTUS

No, he is not. As a separate branch of the federal government, Congress is equal to it.

You don't have to like their interpretation, but their interpretation stands and they are the ones who must decide what is unconstitutional.

No, actually. Paul's job is to vote his conscience as a representative of the people. That includes using his own determination on what the Constitution means, especially since most Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous, and at times are even overriden by future generations of the same court. The Supreme Court does dictate how Congress must vote. If that were the case, there would be no separate branch of government in the first place.

If you want to nitpick, the equal protection clause is only half the equation, the other half is the commerce clause, which gives congress power over interstate commerce.

An even more abused section, which has given us, among other things, the War on Drugs. Just about all commerce these days potentially false under the realm of "interstate commerce", yet the ability to regulate all commerce is quite clearly not how the Constitution was designed.

[SecAmndmt]

“One purpose of the bill is to encourage genetic testing”

This would be enough for me to oppose this bill too.

[SecAmndmt]

“...the other half is the commerce clause, which gives congress power over interstate commerce. Hiring practices and insurance definately fall into that category.”

Typically, I only see this type of argument coming from liberals, socialists and other supporters of big government.

[messierhunter]

It’s the way things are with SCOTUS. I’m not taking a side with the reasoning, but that’s how it is. If you don’t think congress should have power over interstate commerce then you’re at odds with the constitution. These are the standing opinions of SCOTUS, not mine, which Mr. Paul has no power over. If you want to know I think of the issue, it should already be illegal for companies to require access to that information because of HIPAA laws. As far as I’m concerned, your DNA is private health information and it should be illegal for anyone to require you to disclose it. Now the next thing you know, the Paulogists will be saying HIPAA is unconstitutional and you don’t have a right to your health privacy. Hmmm, I thought the constitution limited the powers of government, not the rights of the person. A company requiring you to disclose your DNA’s information for employment or service is a violation of your privacy, it is not their right violate your privacy to get it, let alone discriminate against you for it. The latter shouldn’t even be possible.

[messierhunter]

No, actually. Paul's job is to vote his conscience as a representative of the people. That includes using his own determination on what the Constitution means, especially since most Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous, and at times are even overriden by future generations of the same court. The Supreme Court does dictate how Congress must vote. If that were the case, there would be no separate branch of government in the first place.

It is the supreme court's job to decide whether it is ultimately constitutional or not. There is no precedent Paul can cite to say that they would currently rule it unconstitutional. Irrational fear about future rulings for a court makeup that doesn't even exist yet is not a valid reason for a Nay vote. His job is to vote on the bill based on LEGISLATIVE reasons, unless there is a VALID reason to believe SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional. Notice I didn't say SCOTUS decides how congress should vote, all I said was that it's fine for a congressman to vote against something they have reason to believe would fail in supreme court ruling. I can and will take his vote as an indication of objection for legislative reasons, because that's his job, regardless of what he spews.

"An even more abused section, which has given us, among other things, the War on Drugs. Just about all commerce these days potentially false[Falls?] under the realm of "interstate commerce", yet the ability to regulate all commerce is quite clearly not how the Constitution was designed."

Too bad, so sad, but this is what the constitution clearly states. If you don't like it, you're at odds with the constitution. If a business doesn't want congress to have any power to pass laws regarding how they do business, they're free to restrict themselves to only doing business to people who live in their state.

[messierhunter]

It's simple, so simple I can't believe I actually have to explain it to you. If you turn down someone for a job based on the way they were created, provided it's not something that would interfere with them doing the job properly, then you're denying them a fair shot at being able to work. You seem to think it's ok if there are certain job opportunities not available to someone arbitrarily because of the color of their skin, or because a genetic test says they have a decent chance of getting alzheimer's when they're older.

That's not the opinion of someone who believes in the principles this nation was founded on, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. No this phrase is not legally binding, but it's what they believed, it's what they hoped this nation would strive to achieve.

If you keep someone from working for you just because you hate their race, or whatever the created case may be, you're unfairly denying them the chance to pursue happiness in a job that they want to have a chance to work at. I'm so sorry that it puts you out that you have to give everyone a fair shot, that you have to hire and fire based on how well they actually do the job. You don't have the right to any one job, but you should have the right to pursue happiness in whatever job you can do without being ruled out just because of the color of your skin. Is there anyone here who agrees with this, or am I the last conservative on FR who thinks this? For the record, I do think that most racial lawsuits are probably frivolous, I do think that the race card gets played waaay more often than it should, and I think that race baiters have been undermining the point of these laws, but I still think that at least in concept an employer shouldn't be allowed to rule a person out for nothing more than racist reasons.

[timm22]

Notice I didn't say SCOTUS decides how congress should vote, all I said was that it's fine for a congressman to vote against something they have reason to believe would fail in supreme court ruling. I can and will take his vote as an indication of objection for legislative reasons, because that's his job, regardless of what he spews.

What if a Congressman believes the Supreme Court is flat-out wrong on an issue...should the Congressman be able to vote based on his Constitutional views of the bill? Or does he have to keep those opinions separate from what he may consider when voting on a bill?

If a business doesn't want congress to have any power to pass laws regarding how they do business, they're free to restrict themselves to only doing business to people who live in their state.

That by itself won't take the business outside of Congress's reach.

If the business is near a major highway and open to the public, or if they use materials that have moved in interstate commerce, or if their activities have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, then Congress will find a way to tell them how to run their own business.

[messierhunter]

"What if a Congressman believes the Supreme Court is flat-out wrong on an issue...should the Congressman be able to vote based on his Constitutional views of the bill? Or does he have to keep those opinions separate from what he may consider when voting on a bill?"

If a legislator thinks the supreme court is flat-out wrong, they're free to try to change the situation the next time a supreme court nominee comes through for approval. Unfortunately for Paul, as a congressman, he has no say in the matter. A congressman CAN of course vote any way they wish for any reason, but that doesn't mean I the constituent will be happy about it. Personally I wouldn't vote for a congressman who thought it was their job to completely re-interpret the constitution - that's not what I elected him to do.

"That by itself won't take the business outside of Congress's reach. If the business is near a major highway and open to the public, or if they use materials that have moved in interstate commerce, or if their activities have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, then Congress will find a way to tell them how to run their own business."

Wrong, it will take them outside congress' jurisdiction. What part of "restrict themselves to only doing business to people who live in their state" don't you understand? I mean what I said, in every aspect and ramification of the statement. If you want to take yourself out of interstate business you must only do business with people in your state. That means you check ID's and only sell to and/or buy from with people in-state, get all of your business supplies and/or make your products in-state, etc.

[timm22]

It's simple, so simple I can't believe I actually have to explain it to you. If you turn down someone for a job based on the way they were created, provided it's not something that would interfere with them doing the job properly, then you're denying them a fair shot at being able to work.

So a person is entitled to a fair shot at being able to work? Who must provide these opportunities?

Again, I bring you to the example of a small businessman who could easily hire an extra employee, but chooses not to. Has that businessman harmed anyone to the extent that a government solution is needed?

Or what about the Boy Scouts? Should they be able to exclude a homosexual from membership, even if the Boy Scouts are certain that the homosexual is completely chaste and will not discuss his orientation with others?

You seem to think it's ok if there are certain job opportunities not available to someone arbitrarily because of the color of their skin, or because a genetic test says they have a decent chance of getting alzheimer's when they're older.

I don't think those things should be a matter for government correction. This discrimination may be mean, immoral, and irrational, but since it does not violate rights I do not see it as a legitimate area for government regulation.

That's not the opinion of someone who believes in the principles this nation was founded on...

One of those bedrock principles was the concept of limited government and individual rights, particularly when it came to the Federal government. The Founders could have created a system where the Federal government had broad powers to stamp out social evils wherever found...but they did not.

If you keep someone from working for you just because you hate their race, or whatever the created case may be, you're unfairly denying them the chance to pursue happiness in a job that they want to have a chance to work at.

But it's a chance at happiness they wouldn't even have were it not for the employer's choice to make a job available. It's the employer who "owns" the opportunity, not anyone else. By what right does the applicant get to "take" this opportunity...the right to pursue happiness? If so, how is that different from any other kind of wealth redistribution scheme?

[timm22]

...A congressman CAN of course vote any way they wish for any reason, but that doesn't mean I the constituent will be happy about it. Personally I wouldn't vote for a congressman who thought it was their job to completely re-interpret the constitution - that's not what I elected him to do.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Wrong, it will take them outside congress' jurisdiction. What part of "restrict themselves to only doing business to people who live in their state" don't you understand? I mean what I said, in every aspect and ramification of the statement.

My apologies. For some reason I read your initial statement as meaning "only choosing customers in-state". Upon clarification I see that you are correct.

Surely you recognize that practically every business in the country, including the neighborhood lemonade stand, could easily fit under the reach of the Commerce Clause (as currently interpreted). Do you believe that is what the Founders intended?

[messierhunter]

Surely you recognize that practically every business in the country, including the neighborhood lemonade stand, could easily fit under the reach of the Commerce Clause (as currently interpreted). Do you believe that is what the Founders intended?

The world has changed quite a bit since the founders laid down the constitution. Now, I know a lib starts off saying the same thing, but that's about the only thing I would say I agree with them on. Unlike a lib I don't see that as justification for changing the constitution or breaking with it. I'm just acknowledging the fact that two hundred years ago the typical mom and pop supply store didn't have the technology to do interstate commerce at all. Travel was slow, communication was slow, most businesses supplied only the people living in the area. Jet flights and the internet have changed the way we do business, and it's honestly difficult to say what the founders would think of it all. They may have written some of the things in the constitution differently if they'd had any idea of half the things that would be going on today. The stupid arguments over the intent of the 2nd amendment, which was never supposed to give more power to the government, would be one thing I think they would make far less "ambigous," for example, and maybe the interstate commerce clause as well. However, I think it's fair to say that if a business takes serious steps to be an in-state only business and if that's clearly the intent then they should not be in the jurisdiction of the federal government. I don't know too many businesses that try to limit their business to a single state though; it's just far more profitable to try to do business with the whole country, and if you're going to do that you need to accept that you are under federal jurisdiction for doing so.

I think judges should err on the side of states rights, but we all know that just doesn't happen. I don't have the answers on how to fix activist judges, except to say that we need to elect officials who will appoint better judges. I just don't think a congressman should pretend to be a mini-supreme court judge any more than I think that they should be wasting time pretending to be mini-commanders in chief in charge of bureaucratizing a war.

[messierhunter]

"Again, I bring you to the example of a small businessman who could easily hire an extra employee, but chooses not to. Has that businessman harmed anyone to the extent that a government solution is needed? Or what about the Boy Scouts? Should they be able to exclude a homosexual from membership, even if the Boy Scouts are certain that the homosexual is completely chaste and will not discuss his orientation with others?"

That businessman has "harmed" the job market insofar as there is one less job opening. If that "harm" is across the board, then so be it. If it's the loss of an opportunity for just one race, then that's a different ballgame. It's also part of the reason why I am vehemently anti-affirmative action - it removes opportunities from a specific race who doesn't fit the quote category. As for the boyscouts, they're a religious organization. As such, they have a special exemption to the rules because congress can make no laws restricting the free exercise of religion, period, interstate or not. In any case, I wasn't talking about homosexuality. That's a lifestyle, there's no gene for it, it's not something you were created as.

But it's a chance at happiness they wouldn't even have were it not for the employer's choice to make a job available. It's the employer who "owns" the opportunity, not anyone else. By what right does the applicant get to "take" this opportunity...the right to pursue happiness? If so, how is that different from any other kind of wealth redistribution scheme?

The employer can freely choose to offer the job or not offer the job. The employeer can freely choose to be completely in-state or not. If you want to do business on the national or global scale you have to play by certain rules. The applicant has the right to pursue whatever job they want, that is partly what is meant by the pursuit of happiness, that is their right to "take" the opportunity if they rightly deserve it. Racial job discrimination is not just a "social evil," it's an assault on the principles on which the country was founded. Murder's another "social evil" that happens to be an assualt on an unalienable right. It's an unalienable right for a person to pursue a career without being discriminated against because of the way they were created. It's not taking money from the employer and forcing it into a certain group, it's merely ensuring that whatever position would have been freely offered anyway is offered to all. I'm sorry, but I don't see that as unfair or as "redistributing unearned wealth." If you did the work needed to get to the level of having a certain job, if you've been well-educated, have the experience, etc, then you have earned whatever opportunities are open that you would be accepted for if your race were not a consideration. I have a real serious problem with the redistribution of wealth to those who haven't earned it, to the non-producers, but not to those who have earned it (and I don't mean that as a way of saying "some need to pay their fair share to those who aren't earning enough" - if you don't earn enough then you aren't in the right job).

[SecAmndmt]

“If you don’t think congress should have power over interstate commerce then you’re at odds with the constitution”

Congress does have power over interstate commerce, but the commerce clause was never intended as a catch-all excuse to override Art I Section 8. It doesn’t matter what I think about HIPAA because health care & health insurance are between me, the doctor, my employer, my insurance company and (unfortunately) the State. The federal government simply has no legitimate role to play.

If you believe that the federal government has a benevolent motive to promote privacy, private health care, private insurance and health in general, then you haven’t been following what has been going on in Congress, at the FDA, at the CDC, with Codex (etc) for the last 40-some years.

[messierhunter]

"Congress does have power over interstate commerce, but the commerce clause was never intended as a catch-all excuse to override Art I Section 8."

Perhaps you can enlighten us then as to what exactly it means to have power over interstate commerce if you're saying they're not allowed to regulate interstate commerce?! There's nothing in article I section 8 that would make privacy laws unconstitutional. Handwaving to other issues does not prove anything about this particular law. You say it doesn't matter what you think about HIPAA but then you basically go on to say what you think about the Federal role, ie, HIPAA. Funny.

[SecAmndmt]

“Perhaps you can enlighten us then as to what exactly it means to have power over interstate commerce if you’re saying they’re not allowed to regulate interstate commerce?!”

It should be plain to anyone reading that I did not say that Congress could not regulate interstate commerce. However, Congress routinely adds words to the effect of “affecting interstate commerce” to new laws in order to claim federal jurisdiction over areas & activities which are clearly not federal.

Read the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights for the answer to your second sentence and then look up Clarence Thomas’ arguments in “US vs. Lopez”. The living constitution theory, and its underlying principles of legal and moral relativism, are not constitutional let alone conservative.

No to belabor the point, but what I said about HIPAA is true for any legislation in areas that the States did not delegate to the federal government ie. my opinions or feelings of whether the legislation sounds good or has merits, is irrelevant to the legality or constitutionality of HIPAA or any other legislation of dubious constitutionality. Again, see original intent, Art 1 Section 8, and Tenth amendment for supporting principles.

[messierhunter]

Again, Article I Sec 8 does not make HIPAA or any other federal privacy law unconstitutional. You seem to think that the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate interstate businesses. They clearly do. It does not take a "living constitution" or "moral relativism" to realize that businesses that operate in an interstate manner are under federal jurisdiction. Just because you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that simple fact does not make HIPAA unconstitutional. This is not an example of inventing a right out of "whole cloth," it's a matter of the LEGISLATURE passing a law, and if a business allows itself to operate to customers or from suppliers in multiple states they are clearly in the FEDERAL JURISDICTION!

The only ones dabbling in moral relativism are the ones here who think it's ok to restrict the interstate commerce clause to a role so minor as to be irrelevant, despite the lack of any clauses which would indicate that it cannot affect interstate businesses. We complain when others say the second amendement is limited to state militias, yet we think it's ok to say that the interstate commerce clause is limited to anything other than businesses and individuals? Hypocrites.

[pupdog]

Irrational fear about future rulings for a court makeup that doesn't even exist yet is not a valid reason for a Nay vote.

It's not a question of "fear", rational or not. It is a question of the interpretation of the words of the Constitution, an interpretation that is different by individual and by era. Why do you think that one of the main issues in any presidential election is who the president might nominate for the Supreme and lower courts?

No one who was on the Supreme Court in 1964 is alive today. In fact, the Civil Rights Act was never even challenged in court. There is no reason to just carte blanche assume that this bill would automatically fail if it were challenged in a court today, and therefore, no reason not to simply vote on one's conscience (ie, do their job) and let the Supreme Court strike it down if they are wrong (ie, do their job).

Of course, what should be noted here is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never actualyl challenged in court. But... guess what was? So, by your argument, the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 should have never been passed, since it seemingly contradicted a previous court ruling. Is that consistent with your point?

Fortunately, that's not how it works.

His job is to vote on the bill based on LEGISLATIVE reasons, unless there is a VALID reason to believe SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional.

No, actually, this is his job:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

As you can see, there is nothing in this pledge that says that the person taking the oath must blindly follow another one of the branches in doing so, even so far as to assuming what might happen if it were to be judged by it. Defending the Constitution is a "legislative reason".

I can and will take his vote as an indication of objection for legislative reasons, because that's his job, regardless of what he spews.

I see. So you will ignore the reality of the actual reasons he does what he does and replace it with your fantasies (sorry, "spews") of what his reasons should be. I think I'm starting to see where this thread is going.

Too bad, so sad, but this is what the constitution clearly states.

Too bad, so sad, what the Constitution says verbatim and what that translates to as policy is a matter of opinion. And too bad, so sad, his opinion of what it says and of what his job is in relation to it is not yours. And too bad, so sad, he has been doing this now for 10 terms, and is about to be elected to an 11th, so clearly, the voters in his district don't have the problem with it that you have.

In other words, you don't get your way here. You can pound this all you want, but the bottom line is that the only person who can say what is a "valid" reason to vote yes and no are Paul and the voters of this district. And clearly, they are happy with it.

If you want to think that this is still the wrong modus operandi for a representative, that is fine, but I don't share your view one bit. Nor do I share your interpretation of the Constitution.

That's still fine. That's just simple disagreement. What's not fine is outright admitting that you are going to impose your view of what you think his motives for this actions should be in your ideal world on top of the actual motives that are clearly discernible. That kind of brazen dishonesty makes me wonder if there is really any point to this discussion.

Unfortunately I have to end this either way, because I have now been spending far too much time on this and other threads here, and need to get back to the world. Last word is yours. I hope it's something that makes me hopeful about discussions in the future.

[messierhunter]

"Why do you think that one of the main issues in any presidential election is who the president might nominate for the Supreme and lower courts?"

That's the president's job. Note that it is not the president's job to come up with his or her own "creative" interpretations of the constitution.

"Of course, what should be noted here is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never actualyl challenged in court."

LMFAO! That doesn't make it any less constitutional. There are plenty of laws that have never come before the supreme court, does that make them unconstitutional a priori? No.

"As you can see, there is nothing in this pledge that says that the person taking the oath must blindly follow another one of the branches in doing so, even so far as to assuming what might happen if it were to be judged by it. Defending the Constitution is a "legislative reason"."

Creatively reinterpreting the constitution in direct contradiction to how the supreme court currently interprets it is NOT "defending the constitution." Much as I hate their interpretations at times, the congress is not there to pass laws that fly in direct contradction to current interpretation (such as if they were to pass an all-out abortion ban, much as I would love it, it would be a waste of time and taxpayer money, not what I elected them to do). Using current interpretation and precedent as a guide is not the same as "blindly following." It is, however, prudent and should be expected of our elected officials. I'm sorry, but voting against a law just because you're blind to the interstate commerce clause is not "defending" anything but biggotry.

"I see. So you will ignore the reality of the actual reasons he does what he does and replace it with your fantasies (sorry, "spews") of what his reasons should be."

If he wants to be a nutjob and vote on things for reasons that are outside the scope of his job, then I will take his vote however I damn well please.

"Too bad, so sad, what the Constitution says verbatim and what that translates to as policy is a matter of opinion."

Too bad, so sad, the interpretation of the constitution was not left up to little idiot congressmen with inflated self-importance, backed by racist biggots and conspiracy theorists, for a reason. That's all this amounts to, that's all this will EVER amount to. You obviously have a serious problem with what the constitution actually says and seem to think it should be up to every congressman and woman to come up with their own creative "interpretation" of what it means.

"Last word is yours. I hope it's something that makes me hopeful about discussions in the future."

I think the translation here goes something like "I hope you capitulate to my activist congressmen point of view, because I can't stand the heat of debate." Whatever, you want to ignore me, fine, but I hardly think the short debate we've had here so far constitutes a logical endpoint for a "last word" on the subject. I leave the "last word" open for someone else to grab at some point in the future. Lord knows I stirred up a hornet's nest of paulogists who always manage to get in the last word from their parent's basement. Whether it's on this thread or not, I'm sure mine won't be the last word about this subject.

[messierhunter]

"So, by your argument, the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 should have never been passed, since it seemingly contradicted a previous court ruling. Is that consistent with your point?"

One last idiotic statement I missed that deserves rebutting. You're suggesting that the precedent set by the 1883 supreme court is higher than the precedent set by the 1954 supreme court in brown v board of education, which effectively reversed the 1883 decision? You have to resort to idiotic tactics like this where you selectively ignore more recent rulings in order to conclude that, based on court precedent, congress should not have even tried to pass the 1964 civil rights law.