Racist homeowners refuse to sell to black couple

[BlackTerrel]

The good news is that this sort of thing is now so rare that it makes the news when it does happen.

 

[WaltM]

The good news is that this sort of thing is now so rare that it makes the news when it does happen.

yep.

and it's hilarious how people here treat news stories like its the norm.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Once upon a time in some parts of this country in some neighborhoods it was considered a despicable thing to sell your house to someone not of the predominant neighborhood race.

In Africa, one was either a master, a slave, or an untouchable. As this process worked quite peacefully with the slaves serving their masters, both the slaves and their masters together rejected the outcaste untouchables. The result was to sell into slavery to the Portuguese 12 worthless souls for the sum total of a horse. After these worthless people arrived in the United States, they were then sold for a price greater than 1/12th of a horse.
When African Americans celebrate their culture, they are celebrating the tyranny that treated them worst than the so-called people who bought them and, after fighting a war over it, then helped set them free.

 

[jmdrake]

Where does "or the people" come in?

I understand States have rights to make laws, but what does "or the people" mean? That they come only last after federal and state failed to present what's legal?

This is my understanding. (It could be wrong). Since the primary goal of the constitution was to enumerate (and thus limit) the power of the federal government, the federal government couldn't arbitrarily pass some law restricting some unenumerated right. So if a right is unenumerated, and if the state hasn't restricted that right or if the state has enumerated that right in its own constitution, then the person has that right. Again alcohol is the easiest example. That right isn't enumerated in the U.S. constitution. If your state hasn't restricted that right then you have it because the federal government has no power to take it away. (At least in theory).

Save time? Get help?

Ok.

even today?

Well I suppose it depends if we are including the military and national guard as enforcement agents in violation of posse comitatus. But I think there are more police, sheriffs, state troopers etc. than FBI, treasury agents etc. I could be way off on that guess though.

But has it ever happened when a local ordinance or state law was challenged in a federal court (to be overturned , overridden)

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

The Supreme Court struck down an ordinance barring the sacrificial killing of animals as an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of religion. And I know I said that earlier that the court upheld all religious beliefs but not all religious acts and killing an animal is certainly an act. But the problem with the law was that it specifically targeted religion. Had the law banned all killing of animals it might have been upheld. (First amendment free exercise jurisprudence gets really twisted really fast.)

it would effectively make "federal government can't do this" arguments useless.

Yes. I suppose so. But then the federal action is limited to the states that really want it. Take drug laws for instance. If DEA agents were only allowed to operated in states that wanted drug laws I don't see a problem with that other than spending. But maybe I'm missing something.

no, that's my point. Which is why I find it funny people argue these things at all.

Oh. Ok.

No, the Constitution authorized itself to be the Constitution.

And let the Supreme Court interpret it. (and in today's context, it would be the new circular starting point)

Except the constitution never specifically said the Supreme Court should be its interpreter. That came later in Maubury v. Madison.

I agree.

I find it funny why people want it every possible way, never sticking to a consistent set of rules when arguing this stuff.

Ok. Well I'm looking at it from the statepoint of strong versus weak precedence. Strong precedence is backed up by the text and stays solid throughout the years. The current commerce clause precedence stretches the text and has been successfully attacked 2 out of 3 times in the past several years. I think of most people on the left who went gaga over Rands words about the CRA realized this, they'd have agreed that it should have initially been reworded. Who wants a law that might be overturned?

ha. under what authority or law is a President allowed to do so?

Article II section 2 gives the president the power to appoint justices to the supreme court. But nowhere in the constitution does it say how many justices can be on the court. Traditionally it has been 9 (I forget how old of a tradition that has been), but that's not set in stone. Technically Obama could double the size of the current supreme court if the senate would go along with him.

Anyway, this has been a pleasant conversation.

 

[WaltM]

Article II section 2 gives the president the power to appoint justices to the supreme court. But nowhere in the constitution does it say how many justices can be on the court. Traditionally it has been 9 (I forget how old of a tradition that has been), but that's not set in stone. Technically Obama could double the size of the current supreme court if the senate would go along with him.

Anyway, this has been a pleasant conversation.

Ok, thanks!

NOW I feel like an idiot, I really thought 9 was in some law.

Then it's amazing how Presidents have never actually done it!

 

[WaltM]

Well I suppose it depends if we are including the military and national guard as enforcement agents in violation of posse comitatus. But I think there are more police, sheriffs, state troopers etc. than FBI, treasury agents etc. I could be way off on that guess though.

I think you are right.

However, would posse comitatus be relevant if States authorized and asked for the assistance of them?

 

[libertybrewcity]

I can't wait until it's criminal to tell your child whom they can't marry.

you clearly just post anything without reading or thinking. If you actually read the post i never mentioned anything about government or marriage.

I was saying that it is racist to deny someone a sale solely based on race.

Is that not racism? It is.

Maybe say something thoughtful next time.

 

[low preference guy]

Maybe say something thoughtful next time.

it's WaltM, don't hold your breath.

 

[libertybrewcity]

yep.

and it's hilarious how people here treat news stories like its the norm.

even if it's not the norm, racism is racism and it is still wrong.

 

[libertybrewcity]

it's WaltM, don't hold your breath.

yea, really. reeks of trolling...

 

[raistlinkishtar]

An offer was made for a piece of private property and was not accepted. I'm not sure how skin color matters one iota. This is a case of government abuse against a private citizen and nothing more.

 

[Stary Hickory]

It is perfectly fine to associate voluntarily based on race, smell, feet size, gender, or any thing else so can come up with. And it is perfectly fine for people to think that you are ignorant and irrational for doing so.

They made the news now everyone knows that are not selling because they are racist. Now we can all deal with them accordingly. However it is their property and they can do whatever they like with it.

 

[jmdrake]

Ok, thanks!

NOW I feel like an idiot, I really thought 9 was in some law.

Then it's amazing how Presidents have never actually done it!

Such a move would not be without political risk. Let's say Obama tried that. Can you imagine even one republican voting for cloture to pack the court with extra votes? That would also be a great rallying cry of republicans who already seem poised to retake the house and senate. Besides, there's already enough bad supreme court precedence for the president and congress to do almost anything they want anyway. (Warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, bailouts to private business, going to war without a proper declaration of war, etc). The court might strike down Obamacare and that might temp him to try something like this, but by that time he probably won't have a majority in the senate anyway.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Their house, they can sell it to who they want.

For that matter, why would I want to give my money to a racist.

 

[JackieDan]

Well, they should be able to sell to whoever they want, but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well, which would kill the property value of the whole block, which will then make all the neighbors put pressure on the couple to sell.

That's how the the free market handles bigotry.

word!

 

[WaltM]

Such a move would not be without political risk. Let's say Obama tried that. Can you imagine even one republican voting for cloture to pack the court with extra votes? That would also be a great rallying cry of republicans who already seem poised to retake the house and senate. Besides, there's already enough bad supreme court precedence for the president and congress to do almost anything they want anyway. (Warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, bailouts to private business, going to war without a proper declaration of war, etc). The court might strike down Obamacare and that might temp him to try something like this, but by that time he probably won't have a majority in the senate anyway.

Understood.

In contrast, he can remove them to be 5, or 3, so it'll be easier to get things done if they all agree with each other.

 

[WaltM]

you clearly just post anything without reading or thinking. If you actually read the post i never mentioned anything about government or marriage.

I was saying that it is racist to deny someone a sale solely based on race.

Is that not racism? It is.

Maybe say something thoughtful next time.

I agree, it is.

So what's wrong with what I said?

 

[WaltM]

An offer was made for a piece of private property and was not accepted. I'm not sure how skin color matters one iota. This is a case of government abuse against a private citizen and nothing more.

skin color would be the cause if it can be shown they accepted lower offers of a different skin color. Or vindicated if they accepted another offer from a black buyer.

 

[WaltM]

It is perfectly fine to associate voluntarily based on race, smell, feet size, gender, or any thing else so can come up with. And it is perfectly fine for people to think that you are ignorant and irrational for doing so.

They made the news now everyone knows that are not selling because they are racist. Now we can all deal with them accordingly. However it is their property and they can do whatever they like with it.

they certainly can, but they're pretty stupid for caring as they can take the money and walk away, and it would no longer be their concern.

 

[jmdrake]

Understood.

In contrast, he can remove them to be 5, or 3, so it'll be easier to get things done if they all agree with each other.

He can't remove justices. The congress could impeach them though. And he doesn't have to replace impeached / retiring / dead justices. But if you've got a "vacancy" (since everyone is conditioned to believe there's supposed to be 9) the natural inclination for the president is to fill the "vacancy" with someone willing to rubberstamp his agenda like Elana "the government can make you eat 3 veggies if it wants to" Kagan.

YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat