states rights... or individual rights

[dayman]

I want to make sure I have this correct - you think that a state, which is supported by taxpayer revenue, should be able to selectively discriminate against certain taxpayers - and along lines that are arbitrary and phenotypic? I won't get into a pro forma 14th Amendment argument because I understand that you're essentially saying that you disagree with it as a matter of philosophy - but how compelled are you by arguments of economic fairness?

 

I'll also stay away from the Article I Section 8 Clause 3 arguments with respect to your second point as I understand that you're just opining.

 

The 'state being able to discrimate' argument is a little more interesting though. Do you also think that a state should be able to discrimate against citizens from different states? Do you think states should be able to discriminate against other states?

 

This is not a "gotcha" question; I'm genuinely interested in knowing - because to me it implicates an economic fairness concern. I could give two ____ what you're thoughts are on the racial equality component.

 

Well it's not really fair to attack his statement with that b/c he clearly was not talking about state action. The better argument is just to point out that what he's really opposed to is the 13th amendment which requires no state action and bans not only slavery/involuntary servitude but "badges and incidents" thereof (like racial discrimination in housing)....and then of course Commerce Clause does destroy things further for any argument on behalf of that idea. The "state being able to discriminate" is not more interesting lol that's cut and dry...the private right to discriminate is the more interesting argument although it's a clear cut loser as well.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

Well it's not really fair to attack his statement with that b/c he clearly was not talking about state action. The better argument is just to point out that what he's really opposed to is the 13th amendment which requires no state action and bans not only slavery/involuntary servitude but "badges and incidents" thereof (like racial discrimination in housing)....and then of course Commerce Clause does destroy things further for any argument on behalf of that idea. The "state being able to discriminate" is not more interesting lol that's cut and dry

 

I think "also" was an egregious phrasing on his part, nothing more.

 

...the private right to discriminate is the more interesting argument although it's a clear cut loser as well.

 

Tell it to the Congressional Black Caucus.