• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Civil Right not a Civil Right

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
i guess you are right, maybe we should use the term "real estate". though that can mean different things too.
but i do have to disagree with you that the constitution only applies to government. it is a agreement that when we are citizens that we all adhere to. that is what is meant by the 10th. if it is not spelled out by the Constitution then it falls to the states. there is some description in this. the states used to have their own religions. but also there has been people charged with the violation of another's constitutional rights

I used to think the same until I started studying it more. I have learned that interpretation just isn't true, the constitution is simply a document of cans and cannots for the federal government a law for the federal government. We the people owe no obligation or even allegiance to them, this is strongly suggested in the principles of '98 or even in the ratification agreement of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island..where they said they retain the power to leave the union.

The original idea is united States of America, yes small u in united, The states formed the confederacy and the union for the federal government to take care of certain matters, mostly as Jefferson stated everything "foreign", the states were sovereigns with in themselves and it was up to the people and states to decide what ever wasn't granted as a power or authority to the federal government, this was the purpose of the 9th and 10th.

Real Estate isn't a term I'd use, the basis for natural law which is our founding is that each person is property within themselves and it goes from there, my house is an extension of my person, I worked for it, I built it, I properly bought it, same would go for my business, even one I choose to open to the public, I have the natural right to not have you in my business for what ever reason as much as I have the natural right not to let you invade my body or my person.,
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
Sorry , SVG. your dwelling property and your business for "public accommodation" is covered by totally different laws. remember you do not have property rights in the US. even your dwelling property is subject to the whims of government. just try not paying your property taxes and see how long it will be before they take it away from you. of course they should use "due process", but even then, that can be decided by the local government

if you have a cite that proves me wrong i would love to have it. i wished i was wrong

point in fact, your personal opinion does not count. just like the ones that want a right to a job or right to a house, even those that want "animal rights" in the constitution
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Sorry , SVG. your dwelling property and your business for "public accommodation" is covered by totally different laws. remember you do not have property rights in the US. even your dwelling property is subject to the whims of government. just try not paying your property taxes and see how long it will be before they take it away from you. of course they should use "due process", but even then, that can be decided by the local government

if you have a cite that proves me wrong i would love to have it. i wished i was wrong

point in fact, your personal opinion does not count. just like the ones that want a right to a job or right to a house, even those that want "animal rights" in the constitution

Papa-I understand what has happened to property rights and the unjust ruination of them by government and courts.

The cites are the study of natural law, these are not just my opinions these were the prevailing opinions of the people at the time of the revolution.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Sorry , SVG. your dwelling property and your business for "public accommodation" is covered by totally different laws. remember you do not have property rights in the US. even your dwelling property is subject to the whims of government. just try not paying your property taxes and see how long it will be before they take it away from you. of course they should use "due process", but even then, that can be decided by the local government

if you have a cite that proves me wrong i would love to have it. i wished i was wrong

point in fact, your personal opinion does not count. just like the ones that want a right to a job or right to a house, even those that want "animal rights" in the constitution

You forgot 'zoning' laws.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Sorry , SVG. your dwelling property and your business for "public accommodation" is covered by totally different laws. remember you do not have property rights in the US. even your dwelling property is subject to the whims of government. just try not paying your property taxes and see how long it will be before they take it away from you. of course they should use "due process", but even then, that can be decided by the local government

if you have a cite that proves me wrong i would love to have it. i wished i was wrong

point in fact, your personal opinion does not count. just like the ones that want a right to a job or right to a house, even those that want "animal rights" in the constitution

Laws have no bearing on a person's rights, only their ability to exercise them. It is incorrect to say someone has more or less right due to an arbitrary statement of a few men with a couple of signatures on it. The right is there whether you are able to exercise it or not, whether you'll be persecuted or prosecuted for trying to exercise it.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
Laws have no bearing on a person's rights, only their ability to exercise them. It is incorrect to say someone has more or less right due to an arbitrary statement of a few men with a couple of signatures on it. The right is there whether you are able to exercise it or not, whether you'll be persecuted or prosecuted for trying to exercise it.

Again STEALTHY. your personal opinion does not a right make. if you can come up with a cite i really would appreciate it. please show me where the right exists
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It isn't just an opinion. It is a philosophical point of view--one with which many Liberty-minded folks agree.

Rights exist even if someone stops you from exercising them. If you love Liberty, you think it is wrong when someone is stopped from exercising a fundamental right, real maybe, but still wrong.

When the state stops someone from discriminating in choosing with whom they will associate, the fundamental rights of the someone have been violated, not the fundamental rights of the person suffering the discrimination. When the government allows individuals to discriminate, regardless of basis, no one's fundamental rights are violated, not even the one against whom the discrimination is aimed.

If you disagree with that philosophy, fine. But it is dishonest to call it an opinion. It is much more than that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
It isn't just an opinion. It is a philosophical point of view--one with which many Liberty-minded folks agree.

Rights exist even if someone stops you from exercising them. If you love Liberty, you think it is wrong when someone is stopped from exercising a fundamental right, real maybe, but still wrong.

When the state stops someone from discriminating in choosing with whom they will associate, the fundamental rights of the someone have been violated, not the fundamental rights of the person suffering the discrimination. When the government allows individuals to discriminate, regardless of basis, no one's fundamental rights are violated, not even the one against whom the discrimination is aimed.

If you disagree with that philosophy, fine. But it is dishonest to call it an opinion. It is much more than that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

you can have a "philosophical point of view" that the earth is flat (pretty sure you do), that doesn't make it true. come up with a court ruling and i might listen.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
you can have a "philosophical point of view" that the earth is flat (pretty sure you do), that doesn't make it true. come up with a court ruling and i might listen.

What makes a "courts" opinion any more valid than mine? Where did the courts authority on the subject come from? I fear, they might have just pulled it out of their asses.

That certain unalienable rights exist is an undeniable, observable fact of nature. They are self-evident.

George Read said:
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
you can have a "philosophical point of view" that the earth is flat (pretty sure you do), that doesn't make it true. come up with a court ruling and i might listen.

You are comparing a philosophical POV to an item presented as fact whose factuality is easily checked??? Whatever. I have made the point (certainly not for your benefit, but for the benefit of others who read this thread). I really don't care if you get it or not. Many others will. So I will just move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
You are comparing a philosophical POV to an item presented as fact whose factuality is easily checked??? Whatever. I have made the point (certainly not for your benefit, but for the benefit of others who read this thread). I really don't care if you get it or not. Many others will. So I will just move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

EYE , i really hope you move along, though dealing with you, i doubt it
i actually do respect every bodies POV. just when it comes to law it doesn't mean anything. you can have the opinion, that blacks should not drink from the white fountain. but that is a wrong POV

i also post to other readers that they will see there is no property rights in the US. businesses are ruled by law and there is no reason we can't make a law for bus., to honor the actual rights spelled out in the constitution.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
EYE , i really hope you move along, though dealing with you, i doubt it
i actually do respect every bodies POV. just when it comes to law it doesn't mean anything. you can have the opinion, that blacks should not drink from the white fountain. but that is a wrong POV

i also post to other readers that they will see there is no property rights in the US. businesses are ruled by law and there is no reason we can't make a law for bus., to honor the actual rights spelled out in the constitution.

The two samples you use, PUBLIC transportation and PUBLIC a public place (ie. water fountain) are not the same as a PRIVATE buisiness or PRIVATE proporty. IMHO

I know the goverment likes to think they are the same thing but they are not. Since everyone pays taxes no matter your race, sex, age, or other factor; if you are a legal citizen you should be able to use the public outlets that are supported by your tax dollars. On the other hand you shouldn't have such protection in reguards to a private buisiness. If a private shop wants to not serve a class of people it should be their right no matter if we thinnk it is wrong as it is their choice.

My issue is when the goverment steps in and tells a private shop owner who he can or can't sell his product too.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
The two samples you use, PUBLIC transportation and PUBLIC a public place (ie. water fountain) are not the same as a PRIVATE buisiness or PRIVATE proporty. IMHO

I know the goverment likes to think they are the same thing but they are not. Since everyone pays taxes no matter your race, sex, age, or other factor; if you are a legal citizen you should be able to use the public outlets that are supported by your tax dollars. On the other hand you shouldn't have such protection in reguards to a private buisiness. If a private shop wants to not serve a class of people it should be their right no matter if we thinnk it is wrong as it is their choice.

My issue is when the goverment steps in and tells a private shop owner who he can or can't sell his product too.

I think the issue is more the government telling who the store owner to whom he MUST sell his product.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
And I could, via a law, accommodate myself in your home, while traveling, without your consent because you have no property right.


You are absolutely right, OFM. it has been done several times in the history of our country. you do run into the 4th amendment but that has to do with privacy not property rights.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
The two samples you use, PUBLIC transportation and PUBLIC a public place (ie. water fountain) are not the same as a PRIVATE buisiness or PRIVATE proporty. IMHO

I know the goverment likes to think they are the same thing but they are not. Since everyone pays taxes no matter your race, sex, age, or other factor; if you are a legal citizen you should be able to use the public outlets that are supported by your tax dollars. On the other hand you shouldn't have such protection in reguards to a private buisiness. If a private shop wants to not serve a class of people it should be their right no matter if we thinnk it is wrong as it is their choice.

My issue is when the goverment steps in and tells a private shop owner who he can or can't sell his product too.

DOC my example of the water fountain was to point out bigotry. by law a "private shop" does not have to let anyone in except government inspectors. just try and keep them out and see how long you stay in business. a "private" shop is closed to the general public. the point is we are discussing "public accommodating" business

can you cite me where there is property rights in the USA? again your personal opinion does not count, you can think it is good that a black person can't drink from a white fountain, it still would be wrong
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
BTW. for you guys that don't think the government can not tell you who to sell to and what you can sell. look up the FDR administration a look at what they did.

there are millions of products you can not sell to people even when they were proved harmless
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
doc my example of the water fountain was to point out bigotry. By law a "private shop" does not have to let anyone in except government inspectors. Just try and keep them out and see how long you stay in business. A "private" shop is closed to the general public. The point is we are discussing "public accommodating" business

can you cite me where there is property rights in the usa? Again your personal opinion does not count, you can think it is good that a black person can't drink from a white fountain, it still would be wrong

what?
 
Top