Crusaders for the Nanny State

EverVigilant.net ^ | 05/10/2004 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Boot Hill]

CJ:   Amazing, there are 13 posts on this thread by Protagoras where he engages in blatant personal attacks and defamation by calling you a criminal, and yet only two get pulled. What's up with that?

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

It was bad enough reading the blatant personal attacks and defamations against Cultural Jihad and CWOJackson that were left standing on this thread, without so much as a word of admonition from the moderators, but now Protagoras has chosen to enlarge and continue his outrageous attacks via private FReepmail to me. How long will his juvenile attacks be permitted to continue, before you act?

Protagoras:   I will not tolerate any personal abuse from you like I've seen here. Not on a thread and definitely not in a private reply. DO NOT EVER freepmail me with that kind of adolescent crap again. Knock it off. NOW.

--Boot Hill

[CWOJackson]

Whenever I get fan mail like that I simply tell them once to knock it off. From there on I just post their e-mail on their thread so everyone can enjoy their wit and wisdom. It's amazing how quickly they get the message.

I do notice that my response to the persistent Protagoras has been removed. I must have hurt his feelings.

[Boot Hill]

"I do notice that my response to the persistent Protagoras has been removed."

Yes, I noticed that, too. But I also noticed that his derogatory posts, that may have prompted your response, still stand.

--Boot Hill

[CWOJackson]

I really don't mind. His posts and attitude pretty much speak for themselves...my comments weren't necessary to point that out.

[Sandy]

the 14th amendment prohibits the religious apartment owner from renting to an unmarried couple. How can one be for local choice without repealing the 14th amendment?

You're confused. The Constitutional authority for the Fair Housing Act (and the Civil Rights Act) is primarily the Commerce Clause. Don't know why you're talking about some need to repeal the 14th.

[Sandy]

"Maybe you have one where the court ruled that Congress had no authority to regulate intrastate activity, despite the fact that the activity substantially affected interstate regulation?"

Here's a couple that sound like what you're looking for:
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US (1935)
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

[Protagoras]

Protagoras has chosen to enlarge and continue his outrageous attacks via private FReepmail to me.

Please post the freepmail so others can evaluate whether or not it is an outrageous attack.

I have not posted to this thread because I was asked to take it to the Smokey backroom by another poster. I have respected that. Others here, including you, have not.

In respect for others, if you have anything further to say on the subject, please contact me via freepmail. Thank you.

[robertpaulsen]

Re: A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US (1935)

I agree with the court. Unlike a prior case, Local 167 v. United States, 291 U.S. 293 (1934), there was no connection, direct or indirect, between the intrastate activities and interstate commerce. But when there was a connection (as in Local 167), the court ruled that intrastate activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Re: Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

Well, we have the Poultry case on the receiving end of commerce, and the Carter case at the beginning. I can see why you included both.

But as with the Poultry case, I again have to agree with the court. There was no connection, direct or indirect, of "struggles between employer and employees" and interstate commerce.

Now, both cases do bring up the "direct/indirect" argument. In Poultry, the court stated, "The precise line (between direct and indirect effects) can be drawn only as individual cases arise, but the distinction is clear in principle." And I agree.

For example, I concur with both recent decisions, Lopez and VAWA precisely for that reason.

[robertpaulsen]

Bad example. You are correct. These were Commerce Clause issues, not 14th amendment due process issues.

How about abortion or the Texas sodomy case? The Ten Commandments case? Saying "God" at a commencement ceremony? A Nativity scene at City Hall?

I believe repeal of the 14th should take care of those issues, and hundreds more, and return them to the states.

[CWOJackson]

Sorry to see the thread moved. You tried. Better luck with the next one.