Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:59:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:20:24 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
> Yes, Travis, private employers too.
> Title VII, section 703(a) says that it is unlawful for an employer....
>
> "to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise
> to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,
> terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
> individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...."

And where in the Constitution does the Congress presume to get its
authority to regulate private employers from?  The way I see it, if
the application and hiring process takes place in-state, and the job
being applied for does not involve crossing state lines, then the
Civil Rights Act cannot apply.  Has this been tested?
(And on a similar note: What about federal drug laws?  I have asked this
question before, but I'm not sure if it was on this list--don't the
feds have to prove that the drugs were carried across state lines before
they can prosecute?)
I think that since Congress has no inherent power to regulate private
civil rights, every law they pass should be subject to scrutiny.
If the effect of the Civil Rights Act is not just to regulate interstate
commerce, the feds must show a compelling interest that the CRA pro-
motes.

> >Jamie, do separate-sex bathrooms in public buildings violate equal
> >protection???
>
> No.

Why not??  Don't I have as much right to go into a women's restroom as
a woman??  Blatant sex discrimination, if you ask me.

> >I don't think that the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment ever
> >was meant to preclude the state from keeping a moral society.
>
> They certainly weren't. They were intended to make our society
> MORE moral. Equality before the law is a part of our political
> morality, enshrined in law.

Agreed.

> >To most Americans (don't let the pink triangle fool you), homosexuality
> >is grossly immoral--you can hear it from Jerry Falwell, or you can
> >read it on the bathroom wall.
>
> The day that I take lessons in morality from Jerry Falwell, kill me.

No, that would be murder, and murder is immoral.

> If most Americans have some good argument that homosexuality is
> immoral, then laws discriminating against homosexuality might pass
> muster. But until that day, equal protection applies even to
> homosexuals. Unless you can think of some good reason that it
> doesn't?
Why must most Americans have some good argument that homosexuality is
immoral??  If most Americans believe homosexuality is immoral, it is
immoral.  If most Americans didn't believe murder were immoral, murder
would not be immoral as pertains to our legal system.

> >The 14th as well as the ninth gives you the right to ADVOCATE legal
> >homosexuality, but not to practice it.
> That's just silly. The 14th amendment says nothing about advocacy.
> It's about equal protection, due process, and one or two other things.
> Can you explain why you think that the ninth or 14th amendments are
> about advocacy?
The right to advocate something is free speech--gay rights groups have
a Constitutional right to march on the state Capitol to demand repeal
of sodomy laws, but they don't have a right to commit sodomy.

> >Also, the Bill of Rights is not totally limited to the federal
> >government.  If you notice, only the First and Tenth Amendments mention
> >Congress.  The others are in the passive voice, applying to both levels
> >of government.
>
> Uh, yeah. So, I forget, who said that they applied only to the fed?
I meant that the 14th is not needed to make the 2nd-9th amendments
apply to the states.

> >I am wondering as to the legitimacy of the Civil War Amendments them-
> >selves.  How can a military-imposed government take the place of an
> >elected legislature?  Could people representing the Southern states
> >have sued to regain their seats in Congress??  Because if not, then
> >the 13th thru 15th Amendments are invalid.  And if so, why didn't they?
> >
> >I believe, but barely, that the C.W. Amendments are legit, but I would
> >like further information.
>
> I'll leave this to the history czars.
OK.

> Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU