🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Pat Jim Crow laws did come after the 15th amendment, in fact the voting rights act was nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment.

None the less laws in the usa **do not** grant rights. They prescribe what is illegal and what the consequences are, nothing more.

Even the introduction to the voting rights act is **very** explicit that the rights granted come from the 15th amendment and that the voting rights act simply codifies the consequences for violating those rights. Read the very first paragraph of the voting rights act which is as follows:

> AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."

@Pat The voting right act was only possible alongside the 15th amendment, which granted the fundamental rights, then the law itself codified various aspects of it. Which goes to prove my point, laws which secure rights can only exist if those rights are first protected in the constitution since laws only codify what is illegal.

@Pat it doesnt circunscribe federal law.. the law you suggested was that an obgyn woukd have tonperform an abortion, he did. Thr woman just went to jail afterwards.

Since a law can only make something illegal no law congress coukd pass woukd prevent a state from making abortion illegal. We have rights for that.

@Pat i never said congress cant regulate stuff, i am saying they cant grant rights without an amendment.

Take the example here. So lets saythey passed that law, and in some state they also made abortions illegal.. so now you have a situation where if a person goes to an obgyn they will be forced to do the abortion but they also would be forced to report thr woman who got the abortion and have her arrested. How is that a solution?

@Pat what exactly are you proposing they make as a law with regard to interstate commerce? I have yet to hear a workable enforcable law you coukd pass with a simple majority that woukd grant a right. Even with interstate commerce the laws passed limit rights dont grant them

@Pat No you cant make it illegal for a state to do x.. states cant be arrested and such a statement makes no sense. You coukd maybe do something like "its illegal for a doctor not to perform an abortion on requesf" but im pretty sure forcing a doctor to do an abortion woukd be unconstitutional.

@Pat the civil rights act **outlaws** discrimination. It does not grant a right at the civil level. As i said laws decide what is illegal, what a federal law cant do is force something to be illegal. Civil rights act proves my point, it codifies things that are illegal, it does not codify rights.

@MikeBon except i didnt argue otherwise. I asked you to give an explicit example of a loophole and how it favors the rich. The fact your throwing a tantrum cause someone responded and was willing to explore your assertion says a lot about you though.

@Pat it has nothing to do as a fillibuster... even if you coukd eliminate the fillibuster how do you intend to change things? Youd have to create a constitutional amendment if you want to grant abortion as a right. A law, as as i can tell, wouldnt be able to grant a right.

@MikeBon No i am actively trying to engage and understand your views and discuss them.. you were doing fine but as of the last few messages seem to be quickly progressing towards a tantrum.

@MikeBon haha ok waste everyones time then adding no value and blowing hot air if thats what you want. Lol

@Pat right and they cant. A simple majority is not enough to address roe v wade

@MikeBon then move along. Do us both a favor if you feel that way. No need to announce it.

@MikeBon No one is fooling anyone, we are trying to have a discussion. Either engage in that if you wish or feel free to move along.

@Pat How ya figure a simple majority would not be enough.

@MikeBon you can file as self employed even if you dont have a business in the typical sense. In fact every person who is washing windows, doing odd jobs, etc are all under business taxes, and these are the kinds of jobs we expect the homeless to do.

The idea that 1099 basdd worked isnt an option for the poorer end of the spectrum is nonsense. In fact quite the opposite, most rich people, even if they own the company, are working for tbeir own company as a w2. There are quite a few barriers that specifically prevent the rich from getting tax breaks forcing thrn onto a w2 for their own business.

@MikeBon i specifically didnt use the word exclusively.. give an example of a tax cut that benefits the rich and hownit would need to be changed to benefit everyone. Then we can discuss it.

@MikeBon

I can think of a ton of cuts and benefits you get on taxes for the poor.. still waiting to hear you mention one and how you think it favors the rich. I suspect they exist i just cant think of one off hand.

@pmonks

@pmonks @MikeBon

Simply stating it is so (again) doesnt get us anywhere. Which specific tax loophole do you think is exclusively availible to the rich, happy to discuss

@pmonks

No one has presented an example where thry are exclusively or favorable towards the super rich. Everyone has access to them.. if you think there is one only the rich can use im still waiting to hear what one you mean

@MikeBon