Not The Army, but ArmIES.
Below is perhaps a point some have not considered in regards to the current debate on civil rights and private property.
Alot of discussion about “racist” Rand Paul in politics… yet I am sure you all forget Sotamayor, that bastion of equality she is. Her decision involving the case of the firefighters is exactly what Paul is against.
Even to the people who do not like Rand Paul, is he any worse than the buffoons in office now?
Further point when talking about business rights versus government mandate. An earlier point was made about coal mining and the inherent dangerous and “wage slavery” involved in it. Coming from Pennsylvania, my family was involved in coal mining in past generations, that is common here. In rural appalachia, this is still a predominant occupation. In the past, people went into coal mining because IT PAID BETTER than EVERYTHING and allowed them to have a better life straight off the boat from Ireland and Scotland primarily. I personally know an older fellow, who now has dementia that is a millionaire, as was his father who was straight from scotland broke as could be, from working in the coal mines. Coal miners currently make 45k a year to start and generally much more with experience. Compare that to the severe lack of jobs that pay equiv. wages in that area and tell me thats industrial slavery. Right…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So to everyone that supports federal control of patronage at a private business, Why stop there?
Why not put in a law that forbids someone denying access to their residence based on race? Surely if you deem it acceptable to tell a private owner who to allow on this property, civil liberties can’t stop at a residence. Surely making discrimination in one’s home illegal will prevent much racism.
What is being discussed is not public schools, or bathrooms, but a persons private property. Surely if the office of minority affairs at a school receiving public money can deny me membership based on skin color, a guy who uses his money to buy a floor space can deny admittance based on it.
What if I run advertising for a cosmetics line? Can I not deny a model work based on skin color?[/quote]
What if you’re Hooters and you discriminate based on looks! Oh, no!
But, seriously, I was hoping the issue would get away from a simplistic “he’s racist.” It’s a serious topic. And, there’s a serious debate about private property. If an owner only harms himself, there’s probably not much to debate. But, what if we ask “is the owner truly only harming himself? Have his actions no impact outside of his property lines?” Is he bringing unrest, factionalism, discord, to his community? What are the social negatives the rest of us, having to living in the community, must endure?
[quote]0mar wrote:
Going by a strict reading of the Constitution, yes, we can have an “air force”, but not an “Air Force”. If you truly followed what Rand and Raul believe, in terms of constitutionality, this argument would stand. When the air force was part of the Army and Navy, that is Constitutionally allowed, when the Air Force became a separate branch, Congress overreached with it’s powers and should be struck down. This is the sort of craziness that Raul and Rand embody.
[/quote]
You’re still playing with the same semantic gymanstics. Congress is authorized to provide for armies and a navy. you’re basing your entire position on the concept that the Air Force is not an “army”. The reality is the Air Force is a flying army - end of story.
3 MAJOR POINTS FOR YOU:
-
The constitution reads “To raise and support Armies” without qualifying the types of soldiers or armaments to be used specifically because they foresaw that technological advances would be made.
-
You will also note that it is in the plural form thus allowing Congresss the power to raise multiple armies of which we now have 2 - one ground army and one air army.
-
In addition you will note that no titles of the armies to be raised are given, thus regardless of title, so long as it is an army authorized by the Congress it is a Constitutionally legitimate army