Mizzou protesters vs student reporter

[theIowaHawk]

Sadly, in this day and age, we wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment in order to pass new and sweeping legislation of things. We didn't with marijuana like we did with alcohol. Now we simply point to whatever clause we can make tenuous enough to fit, like the commerce clause, or the welfare clause. I would love to see another Constitutional amendment during my lifetime, I don't even really care what it would be about.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I think the important lesson we can all learn in this thread is that theIowaHawk is the smartest guy in the room.

That's not possible, sir. I accomplished that feat no more than an hour ago.....

 

[86Hawkeye]

But, I'm always willing to learn. If you think you can point me to something that specifically makes it "illegal", I'll check it out. TIA.

So, I can personally violate someone's civil liberties and it's not illegal?

 

[theIowaHawk]

So, I can personally violate someone's civil liberties and it's not illegal?

Well that depends on things other than the Constitution (or State ones, or the like).

You could be violating any number of laws by doing the action that results in "violating someone's civil liberties."

Like the discussion above. Punching someone is a violation of chapter 708 of the Iowa Code for Assault, it is not a violation of Article I, section I of the Iowa Constitution.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That's not possible, sir. I accomplished that feat no more than an hour ago.....

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Piggybacking on Natural's question, why should they have to formulate a reason?

Shouldn't students (or employees, or customers, or anyone) be able to protest and demand change in leadership, even without a reason? Why shouldn't they be able to do so? I see nothing wrong with it, they are leveraging what they have (refusing to eat, play, class, whatever) to get what they want.

Even if they just want it because they are bored, I encourage the process.

No the students don't own the university. Neither do employee's or customers.

The president of a university is responsible for the university's overall health not just student whims.

 

[pablow]

No, not only is this legally inaccurate, but logically false as well.

YOU cited that case, you can't then just move on past it. In that case they were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B).
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;

They then claimed that law was unconstitutional: they claim that § 245(b)(2)(B) represents, at least as applied to them, an improper exercise of congressional power beyond the authority given to the federal government by the Constitution...

This was a specific claim that Congress did not have authority to pass that law, because there was no authority granting them that power. The court, however found that the law fell comfortably within Congress's powers under the Thirteenth Amendment as that Amendment has authoritatively been interpreted.

This is precisely where the case ran in to the language you provided. They were not charged under the Constitution, they were charged under a federal law passed by the federal legislature....authorized by the Thirteenth Amendment. Precisely what I said earlier.

...it "has never been doubted" that the power granted Congress by the Thirteenth Amendment "includes the power to enact laws . . . operating upon the acts of individuals" ...

The 13th Amendment, itself does not reach private conduct, it authorizes Congress to regulate private conduct.

What other of the "few examples" that you provided would you like to stand on? Prohibition? No, that granted the government authority to enact THE VOLSTEAD ACT, without which there would be no illegal conduct.

Look, again, this is fairly simple. Absent that federal law....are you claiming that they would have been indicted under the Thirteenth? Of course not, it limits governmental conduct. Yes, it DOES defeat the very fact you claim it doesn't. If the Constitution specifically applies to individual conduct, there would be no need for further legislation. If I broke in to your house I would be charged with violating the 4th, if I murdered you I might be guilty of violating the 6th and not granting you a trial. Follow that logic.

You already lost the argument so your moving the goal posts. I cited the case because it stated the 13th Amendment reaches private conduct. Having lost that point, you're now claiming the constitution doesn't reach private conduct because it requires legislative action. You might as well argue that constitutional implimentation requires judicial action and thus does not directly impact private rights. I'd like to hear you present that argument to a court.

Even though your changing the issue, your new argument is wrong too:

United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3, 20, 3 S.Ct. 18, 28 (1883)

"This amendment [the 13th], as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom. Still, legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit. And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character; for the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States."​

 

[The Tradition]

Today's fun Human Resources fact:

Did you know that the term "sexual harassment" does not appear anywhere in the legislation that allegedly outlaws it?

 

[theIowaHawk]

You already lost the argument so your moving the goal posts. I cited the case because it stated the 13th Amendment reaches private conduct. Having lost that point, you're now claiming the constitution doesn't reach private conduct because it requires legislative action. You might as well argue that constitutional implimentation requires judicial action and thus does not directly impact private rights. I'd like to hear you present that argument to a court.

Even though your changing the issue, your new argument is wrong too:

United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3, 20, 3 S.Ct. 18, 28 (1883)

"This amendment [the 13th], as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom. Still, legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit. And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character; for the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States."​

How on earth am I changing the argument? THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS AND CONTROLS GOVERNMENT NOT PRIVATE PEOPLE.

This is simple, and YOU are trying to change the issues. If slavery became simply illegal for private people......................................why was legislation NECESSARY TO BE PASSED?

So now you abandon the very case you cited, because it did not stand for what you claimed (and said so right in our copy/paste). So let's travel back to your 1883 case:

The cases in Stanley are from the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (you know, federal legislation). The question to the court was whether that Act was, in fact, Constitutional. i.e. whether Congress had authority, under their LIMITED POWERS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, to pass such law.

How about lines like this: "Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment. "

"It does not invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation. It does not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights, but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws and the action of state officers executive or judicial. "

"Civil rights, such as are guaranteed by the United States Constitution against state aggression, cannot be impaired by wrongful acts of individuals, unsupported by state authority. The wrongful act of an individual, unsupported by any such authority, is simply a private wrong, or a crime of that individual, an invasion of the rights of the injured party, whether they affect his person, his property, or his reputation, but if not sanctioned, or not done under state authority, his rights remain in full force, and may presumably be vindicated by resort to the laws of the state for redress."

"In cases where Constitution seeks to protect the rights of citizen against discriminative and unjust laws of the state by prohibiting such laws, it is not individual offences, but abrogation and denial of rights, which it denounces, and for which it gives Congress power to provide a remedy."

"It is true, that slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property in lands and goods can exist without law: and, therefore, the Thirteenth Amendment may be regarded as nullifying all State laws which establish or uphold slavery. But it has a reflex character also, establishing and decreeing universal civil and political freedom throughout the United States; and it is assumed, that the power vested in Congress to enforce the article by appropriate legislation, clothes Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States: and upon this assumption it is claimed, that this is sufficient authority for declaring by law that all persons shall have equal accommodations and privileges in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement; the argument being, that the denial of such equal accommodations and privileges is, in itself, a subjection to a species of servitude within the meaning of the amendment. Conceding the major proposition to be true, that [21] Congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery with all its badges and incidents, is the minor proposition also true, that the denial to any person of admission to the accommodations and privileges of an inn, a public conveyance, or a theatre, does subject that person to any form of servitude, or tend to fasten upon him any badge of slavery? If it does not, then power to pass the law is not found in the Thirteenth Amendment. "

I mean, seriously, how did you pick and choose THAT paragraph (which doesn't say what you think it does) and ignore all of the above?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Seriously this isn't complicated. The Constitution is the document that says, "here, government, here is what you can/can't do." In that document it says, "hey, you need to outlaw slavery." Then Congress did outlaw slavery, without which there was no legal recourse against a private individual.

In order to "win" your legally incorrect argument, you can certainly point me to where all of these individuals were arrested/charged/convicted under the Thirteenth Amendment, you know, because it is self-executing and all.....

I think what you are trying to say is that many of the amendments never meant to even discuss private action, which can be seen in the First clearly saying that "Congress shall pass no law........." not that freedom of speech is simply universal. This is obviously different than the Thirteenth which says ... slavery shall not exist. But this ignores the importance of what I've pointed out from the beginning, that without further law, it governs only government. In this instance, should congress refuse to pass legislation it would be in violation of the Constitution demand that they do so, just as they would be if they passed legislation abridging speech.

 

[theIowaHawk]

No the students don't own the university. Neither do employee's or customers.

The president of a university is responsible for the university's overall health not just student whims.

I'm not sure where you went with this. You seem to be saying that students CANNOT protest and demand the resignation of the president? Why not? Because the President doesn't have to? That isn't the point.

Employees in the mines don't own the mine, nor the mining company, but are you really saying they CANNOT protest and demand the resignation of the CEO? Obviously they can, have, and often should. They have one piece of real bargaining power, their labor, or in the discussion here, their playing football, or their attending class (paying tuition).

None of this is saying that the president has to resign or even should. But I encourage protest even just for protest sake, it is good for the system, even more so when they believe they have been wronged.

 

[pablow]

. . .

I mean, seriously, how did you pick and choose THAT paragraph (which doesn't say what you think it does) and ignore all of the above?

"This amendment [the 13th], as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation"

You don't understand what this means? Does it not mean what it says? I think your just

First you say the the constitution doesn't reach private conduct and I cite you to law that clearly states the 13th amendment prohibits slavery via private or public conduct. To duck around that you then claim that the 13th amendment only effects private conduct through enabling legislation so in effect the 13th amendment doesn't directly address or proscribe private conduct. So I give you a Supreme Court case that states the 13th amendment is "self-executing" and needs no ancillary legislation. Your response now is the clear words of the Court don't mean what they clearly say.

Why don't you just hold your breath until I tell you win. I think that's where your heading anyway.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not sure where you went with this. You seem to be saying that students CANNOT protest and demand the resignation of the president? Why not? Because the President doesn't have to? That isn't the point.

Employees in the mines don't own the mine, nor the mining company, but are you really saying they CANNOT protest and demand the resignation of the CEO? Obviously they can, have, and often should. They have one piece of real bargaining power, their labor, or in the discussion here, their playing football, or their attending class (paying tuition).

None of this is saying that the president has to resign or even should. But I encourage protest even just for protest sake, it is good for the system, even more so when they believe they have been wronged.

See that's where you and I differ. If you have a legitimate reason to protest then by all means do so. But the whole idea of protesting just for the sake of protesting then that's not good for the system at all.

Protesting just for the sake of protesting often just creates greater divisions and makes actually solving our problems that much harder.

Look at what happened with the Tea Party and Occupy protests. Tea Party only served to take the Republican party and pull it into a heavy right ward turn which has increased divisions and decreased the ability to actually solve problems.

Occupy on the other hand ended up costing a bunch of people money. The city for cleanup and many people where blocked from going to their jobs and working. And what did it accomplish? Nothing other then being a big tent for young leftist angst. Not only is the cost of money annoying but also all the energy put into it was wasted by people just expressing their angst because they didn't have a solid set of collective goals or policy solutions.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Interesting that you think the tea party accomplished something, even if negative, but that occupy did not.

Protesting is an American tradition. I'm all for it. Also, they are not protesting for the sake of protesting in Mizzurah, no matter how many times people who disagree with them say they are.

 

[theIowaHawk]

"This amendment [the 13th], as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation"

.

Seriously, point out ANY time where a private individual was charged with violating the Constitution. Unless you don't think you can?

That statement does not mean what you claim it means...you cut it out in order to make it appear to do so, but I obviously refuted it with more language from that exact case. You did not "clearly cite to law that says that", because those cases are specifically discussing FEDERAL LEGISLATION, it says so right in the cases.

 

[theIowaHawk]

. To duck around that you then claim that the 13th amendment only effects private conduct through enabling legislation so in effect the 13th amendment doesn't directly address or proscribe private conduct. .

You post this like there is no distinction, but there is, and it is the very importance I point to. States, and federal now through various clauses, get to pass legislation that outlaws certain conduct. For example, an assault statute, which is what this very thread was discussing. Without an assault statute, a person can't be charged with assault, it would violate various tenets of criminal law and theory. Likewise, without legislation banning workplace discrimination/public accommodation discrimination against race, the 14th would not be implicated, nor would the thirteenth through alleged slavery. Because those amendments do not apply to private conduct. They tell the government what to, and what not to, do....as they have since the drafting.

For basic examples: Section 1 requires there to be a congress, a senate and a hor. If the government didn't implement those they would be in violation of the Constitution. Yes, most of the bor told government what they could not do, but most of the Constitution told government what they could do. Back then this was important, because if it wasn't a granted power, it couldn't be done. We no longer really adhere to that logic and we pass laws willynilly under different clauses. The 13th/14th/15th are no different. As I pointed to earlier (based on your wrongful claim) the 18th Amendment said,

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.


Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

So, in essence, this was a resolution that we, the United States, no longer want liquor manufacture/sale to be legal, THEREFORE GOVERNMENT, YOU SHOULD DRAFT LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL. Guess what? They did, the Volstead Act, saying ""no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, or furnish any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act."

If these amendments were applied to private citizens, and self-prosecuting, it would be redundant to require appropriate legislation. The same applies to the 13th. You know, things like this (from the case you cited): "Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment. "

You want to pretend that this isn't a real distinction, but it is, and it is the one I've been pointing out from the very beginning. But go ahead, show where someone was charged with violating the 13th...

 

[pablow]

If Congress and the states enacted no laws banning slavery contrary to the invitation in sec. 2 of the 13th amendment, you're saying a slave couldn't sue his master for freedom because his master is a private person not subject to the 13th amendment. Sounds like Dred Scott II.

Also, why do you keep referring to individuals being charged criminally. All common law crimes were abolished at the federal level prior to the adoption of the 13th amendment. So, Mr. Obvious, it would be impossible for criminal charges to flow directly from any constitutional provision. Thus the absence of a conviction based on the 13th amendment proves nothing and has absolutely zero relevance to whether a private slave owner could be subject to civil injunctions or even money damages based the 13th amendment alone.

You act as if anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. I've spent too much time on this argument and it's boring besides.

 

[unIowa]

I bet all those white ladies there read some sort of Hollywood tabloid or watch some sort of E television show that is created via the efforts of the Paparazzi hounding celebrities. Oh the sweet sweet irony.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Its boring, yes, because you are wrong, and you brought this up in contention of something you already previously admitted to be true.

He couldn't sue his master for freedom, because there was no necessity for such, slavery couldn't be had, couldn't be enforced, there would be nothing to sue for.

That is like you claiming to be suing your neighbor to stop keeping you as a slave, which he can't, the law isn't implicated. You could, however sue him for wrongful imprisonment, a common law tort...........something that has no connection with the Constitution.

Here is the scenario you are trying to create: State A says it is legal to rape children. It even supports, and protects the raping through legislation and the court's enforcement of rape-contracts. Then, we collectively decide on an Amendment that requires the federal legislature, and states by extension, to legislate against child-rape. In your theory, child-rape instantly becomes "illegal" and then acts upon private people, but it does not. A private person raping a child is not "violating the constitution", because it does not apply to him. The legislature then passes laws and enforces them against the raper, no lawsuit is necessary. The lawsuit, should there be one, would be against the government........for not enacting the laws they were constitutionally obligated to do so.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If Congress and the states enacted no laws banning slavery contrary to the invitation in sec. 2 of the 13th amendment, you're saying a slave couldn't sue his master for freedom because his master is a private person not subject to the 13th amendment. Sounds like Dred Scott II.

Also, why do you keep referring to individuals being charged criminally. All common law crimes were abolished at the federal level prior to the adoption of the 13th amendment. So, Mr. Obvious, it would be impossible for criminal charges to flow directly from any constitutional provision. Thus the absence of a conviction based on the 13th amendment proves nothing and has absolutely zero relevance to whether a private slave owner could be subject to civil injunctions or even money damages based the 13th amendment alone.

You act as if anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. I've spent too much time on this argument and it's boring besides.

Also, they wouldn't be common law, they would be specific prohibitions based on the amendments that YOU claim create specific prohibitions against private conduct. (but they don't).

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not sure why this took three posts, but your stubborn defense of your position is wrong on many levels.

The issue with slavery is that it isn't a thing without collective, government authority. For example: There was no direct prohibition on just picking up your neighbor, pointing a gun at him, and forcing him to work on your plantation............because all of that was simply illegal, not authorized by government. In contrast, slavery was specifically authorized and codified. Once the 13th removed that, there could no longer be the systemic slavery, nothing was "holding" the slaves to the landowner. ....because it was a limitation/requirement on government. This is unique from nearly all other aspects of law, constitutional or otherwise, because it was such an absurd premise to begin with, ignoring all long-standing precedent on trespass.

Therefore any lawsuits against your former slaveholder would be based on the same common law principles that it would be had you never been a slave.

 

[pablow]

I cited you language from two court cases. Instead of attacking me, why don't you explain, without dancing about the issue, why this law is incorrect. The first case states clearly that the 13th amendment reaches private conduct. The second quote from the Supreme Court states that the amendment is self-executing and does not require ancillary legislation. Put the two together and you have an instance of the constitution authority to reach private conduct.

You haven't come within 12 miles of refuting the law I quoted. Please explain why your right and these courts are wrong. Leave me out of it.

"Thus it has long been settled that the Thirteenth Amendment "is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States." Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 20. And accordingly, "under the Thirteenth Amendment the legislation, so far as necessary or proper to eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, may be direct and primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether sanctioned by state legislation or not." Id. at 23; see also Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 179, 49 L. Ed. 2d 415, 96 S. Ct. 2586 (1976). United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2002).​

"This amendment [the 13th], as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation" United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3, 20, 3 S.Ct. 18, 28 (1883)​

 

[theIowaHawk]

Lol at you posting the same paragraph repetitively while completely ignoring the quotes from those very cases dismantling your position.

 

[pablow]

Lol at you posting the same paragraph repetitively while completely ignoring the quotes from those very cases dismantling your position.

You're a fraud - you got you ass kicked and you're behaving like an 8 year old. I'm done.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Do you really want me to repost the very things I've already posted? Such as:

"Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment. "

"It does not invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation. It does not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights, but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws and the action of state officers executive or judicial. "

"In cases where Constitution seeks to protect the rights of citizen against discriminative and unjust laws of the state by prohibiting such laws, it is not individual offences, but abrogation and denial of rights, which it denounces, and for which it gives Congress power to provide a remedy."

"It is true, that slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property in lands and goods can exist without law: and, therefore, the Thirteenth Amendment may be regarded as nullifying all State laws which establish or uphold slavery. But it has a reflex character also, establishing and decreeing universal civil and political freedom throughout the United States; and it is assumed, that the power vested in Congress to enforce the article by appropriate legislation, clothes Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States: and upon this assumption it is claimed, that this is sufficient authority for declaring by law that all persons shall have equal accommodations and privileges in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement; the argument being, that the denial of such equal accommodations and privileges is, in itself, a subjection to a species of servitude within the meaning of the amendment. Conceding the major proposition to be true, that [21] Congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery with all its badges and incidents, is the minor proposition also true, that the denial to any person of admission to the accommodations and privileges of an inn, a public conveyance, or a theatre, does subject that person to any form of servitude, or tend to fasten upon him any badge of slavery? If it does not, then power to pass the law is not found in the Thirteenth Amendment. "

I already, very specifically, discussed the exact cases you cite, none of which are what you claim to be. Both are fighting against LEGISLATION governing their conduct.

I don't know what more to tell you, you simply keep posting the same paragraph redundantly, and each time it still doesn't mean what you claim it means.

THIS, right here, is directly from your above posted quote: "under the Thirteenth Amendment the legislation, so far as necessary or proper to eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, may be direct and primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether sanctioned by state legislation or not."

You just misinterpret the proper portions of your own quote.