Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Punish all for the actions of a few.. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-05-2011 10:52 AM
CheeseForSteeze
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
I am no Constitutional Attorney, but it is my understanding that states, counties, cities etc also must pass Constitutional muster when passing ordinances. For example, a little town in Georgia cannot pass segregation laws making black folks sit in the back of the city bus. These entities cannot pass unconstitutional laws simply because they have been afforded more rights than the federal government.
They must obey The Constitution, yes, but nowhere in The Constitution does it give any explicit restriction of The States (the people) to self regulate their communities in a way as described in the OP. This is the intent for the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Jim Crowe laws are Unconstitutional because there is now a Constitutional amendment forbidding them.

The history behind the so-called Jim Crowe laws is actually a pretty decent analogy for what we have here. If Jim Crowe laws were once again Constitutional, you might have a small few states adopt them. More than likely, just about every State would make the laws unconstitutional (small u) under their own state constitutions. Jim Crowe laws wouldn't exist today not as a function of The Constitution, but simply as a matter of popular sentiment.

The same could be said about singling out supposedly "goth" kids and placing a curfew on the basis of sub-culture fashion and lifestyle choices. If the idea that discrimination in this manner isn't popular then communities will lift the applicable ordinance(s) and States can make such actions unconstitutional.

It is not the right or the function of the Federal Government to legislate morality in this manner. The Constitution is specifically silent on such matters so as to allow The States to choose. The idea being, your state is something you affect more directly and is more of a local community. Just like bigotry amongst a small community such as the Westboro Baptist Church is the right of that community, The States are restricted on very few things in the context of The Constitution and can specifically address in detail matters as the one in question in their own constitutions (small c).
06-03-2011 11:21 PM
Deviant
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWBoarder28 View Post
Damn, sounds like the mayor just hates kids who could be considered a little "different".
The nickname of the city is "Caucasian Falls" (Cuyahoga Falls). Enough said.
06-03-2011 01:47 PM
NWBoarder Damn, sounds like the mayor just hates kids who could be considered a little "different".
06-03-2011 01:45 PM
dtshakuras As Bernie Mac used to say, "Kids these days..."

Just Kidding.

Anyway I can understand a curfew if its crime related as you mentioned about the police reports. But for the ban to be instituted because of certain choice of garb is definitely wrong. All the people I've known or known of who chose to wear goth aren't troublemakers. Man if the mayor had a intolerant view of goths he should have just banned goths and not need to ban all the other kids. I hope when all the kids are old enough to vote, the first thing they do is vote him out of office.
06-03-2011 01:20 PM
Deviant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
Those weird-ass goth kids were some of the nicest people I knew in High School. It was the dicks with polo shirts and popped collars you had to watch out for.
This is true where I went to school as well, which was in this city of discussion. I know for a fact this mayor walks the boardwalk with his hillbilly wife and that's where most of the goths hang out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
While I personally find this policy abhorrable, its certainly a private communities right and perogative to set a curfew. I see it no different from a parent choosing to raise his child under given dogma (atheist, agnostic, monotheism, pantheism, whatever) only it's for a city.

I sure know I'd voice my opinion and move the hell out of such a shithole. No offense. If the common view of my fellow townsfolk is one of bigotry (particularly the elected mayor), it's not a town I belong in. Let the bigots be bigots as is their right but I shan't be counted among them.
Thankfully, I did move out of said shithole about 12 years ago. Unfortunately however, there are bigots everywhere. I think (hope) as more of the young become adults and the bigoted mindset literally dies off we'll see less of the bigotry in this country.

I just don't get it I guess, the mayor making a comment of "what we are trying to rid ourselves of..." and people not being outraged. Shame on these people, but half the country is this anyways

06-03-2011 10:26 AM
CheeseForSteeze I can't take credit for "abhorrable". It's from another messageboard. It's like terribad, only terribad is abhorrable and abhorrable is awesome.
06-03-2011 10:24 AM
CheeseForSteeze
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
couple of things:
1- I agree that it's a crappy idea.
2- I like "abhorrable". Is that a combi of abhorrent and deplorable?
3- Can't agree on the simile. Public officials and government bodies have far more restrictions on them than individuals. Try passing an ordinance requiring people to say grace before eating in a public place, then stand back! Don't know how things run in the US on this subject, but in Canada this kind of law would be challenged on a Human Rights basis -- and successfully, I'm pretty sure.
It's analgous in the fact that local ordinance is not bound by The Constitutional restrains associated with Federal Government, unless the restrains specifically address The States as well. It is the right of a community to legislate morality in the sense that The Constitution (through the Ninth and Tenth amendments, and through the concept that it is a docuemnt of positive rights applicable to The Federal Government) affords The States rights such that they are limited by The Constitution rather than empowered.

In this vein, public officials and governemnt bodies (of The States) have the same rights as the individual. The Constitution specifically says they do.
06-03-2011 10:09 AM
Donutz
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
While I personally find this policy abhorrable, its certainly a private communities right and perogative to set a curfew. I see it no different from a parent choosing to raise his child under given dogma (atheist, agnostic, monotheism, pantheism, whatever) only it's for a city.
couple of things:
1- I agree that it's a crappy idea.
2- I like "abhorrable". Is that a combi of abhorrent and deplorable?
3- Can't agree on the simile. Public officials and government bodies have far more restrictions on them than individuals. Try passing an ordinance requiring people to say grace before eating in a public place, then stand back! Don't know how things run in the US on this subject, but in Canada this kind of law would be challenged on a Human Rights basis -- and successfully, I'm pretty sure.
06-03-2011 09:47 AM
CheeseForSteeze While I personally find this policy abhorrable, its certainly a private communities right and perogative to set a curfew. I see it no different from a parent choosing to raise his child under given dogma (atheist, agnostic, monotheism, pantheism, whatever) only it's for a city.

I sure know I'd voice my opinion and move the hell out of such a shithole. No offense. If the common view of my fellow townsfolk is one of bigotry (particularly the elected mayor), it's not a town I belong in. Let the bigots be bigots as is their right but I shan't be counted among them.
06-03-2011 08:06 AM
Flick Montana Those weird-ass goth kids were some of the nicest people I knew in High School. It was the dicks with polo shirts and popped collars you had to watch out for.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome