No, but I was once barated for disagreeing with part of Holmes's great dissent on the 1870s Civil Rights cases. My opinion was that Crandall v. Nevada created precident to support the bans on discrimination in train cars, stage coaches, and maybe hotels under the "right to travel", but extending said protection to the restaurants, stores, and theaters was unsupportable. It's simply not interstate commerce nor is it inherent in the right to travel.

The professor's only response was "have you ever been to the theater? It's glorious! You should go some time! The theater is absolutey essential
To civilization!"

4 ...

Report Post

Posted by NIH

Member since Aug 2008

112734 posts

Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:22 am to kingbob

Devlin or Baier?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Scruffy

Kansas City

Member since Jul 2011

72189 posts

Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:22 am to kingbob

Apparently it wasn't solicited. It wasn't a debate or a discussion. Somehow, this professor already knew her political leanings and went right into insulting her.

I wouldn't have an issue with it being a debate, if that was the case, but it doesn't appear to be that way.

This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 9:24 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by McLemore

Member since Dec 2003

31538 posts

Posted on 2/14/17 at 9:23 am to kingbob

quote:
It's simply not interstate commerce nor is it inherent in the right to travel.

my friend and i were the lone dissenters in Con Law I on every damned expansion of the ICC. I loved Werhan, even though we disagreed a lot.

This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 9:25 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Texas Weazel

Louisiana is a shithole

Member since Oct 2016

8546 posts

Posted on 2/14/17 at 2:21 pm to kingbob

quote:
It's simply not interstate commerce nor is it inherent in the right to travel

It really isn't, and I learned in college how far reaching the government could be when interpreting law for interstate commerce.

I remember one example a professor gave us was that a restaurant on the side of the highway could entice travelers to stop and eat, which in effect caused restaurants down the road (as in other states) to lose out on that business.

It's pretty ridiculous. It's one of those things that benefited society, but then again do we really want our government to have that much leeway?

This post was edited on 2/14/17 at 2:25 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board