TPD: You are asking the wrong person your questions. I have no problems whatsoever with civil rights legislation enacted during the 1960’s. However, I recognize the legitimacy of the philosophical issues being raised. I do not pretend that they are frivolous or that they arise from racist sentiments.

All of us face a common dilemma. When we see injustice, we want to redress it. But in our zeal to correct a problem, what principles should guide us? Are there limits upon what coercive powers we should give to government bureaucrats and agencies?

This is why I quoted the comments by Sir Thomas More. His son-in-law was prepared to “cut down every law in England” to vanquish the Devil. This is not some arcane debate from hundreds of years ago. The principles expressed by Sir Thomas still apply today.

In our zeal to correct injustice, we must always be cognizant of the harm we can cause by constantly giving government more and more power and control over our lives. Another current example: the controversy over invasive pat downs and body scanners at our airports. In the name of “security” we are now telling government employees that it is OK to touch or view the genitals of men and women.

If (like myself) you think that George Bush and Dick Cheney should have been impeached for their gross violations of fundamental Constitutional principles — then perhaps you can understand the relevance of wanting strict limitations upon what government is permitted to do in our name.

re: #111 Talking Point Detective

Curious as to why you skipped over my question.

I’d still like to hear your answer, as well as to some other questions.

I assume that you feel that there is some point along a slipper slope where federal intervention over state jurisdiction is justified. For example, if a state legislature were to fail to legislate against teenagers being able to access automatic weapons, or people being able to legally drive drunk?

State legislatures refused to enact laws that made discriminatory practices illegal. In fact, they refused to remove laws that codified discriminatory practices as legal.

At what point do you, not the JBS, but you, feel that the immediate impact of discrimination outweighs some abstracted moral principle of judicial or legislative overreach based on the notion that federally baring something as abhorant as discrimination could, at some undetermined time in the future, lead to laws that do more harm than good?

Another question for you. Do you think - without reference to some theoretical potential further slide down a slippery slop- that there is a greater injustice done to a racist store-owner legally barred by a federal government from discriminating against the black cop in the example above than there would be in having that black cop refused service by a racist store owner? Assuming that you would say no, at what point is it incumbent on a federal government to step in to address an immediate injustice rather than waiting around for it to be stopped at a state level, assuming that it would ever be stopped by the state?

Do you think that the CRA has caused more harm than good, created more injustice than it has prevented?