Other than the nonsense happening at our Southern border, the big news over the weekend was that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was refused service and, “She and her family were asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va.”
“Jaike Foley-Schultz, who says he is a waiter at the Red Hen, shared a post on Facebook that said his boss kicked out the press secretary and her party.”
Sanders confirmed that this was the case in a tweet:
Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so
— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) June 23, 2018
Predictably, both the left and right are blowing up over this incident. They shouldn’t, but they are. And both sides are because, to this point, it has been so unusual. If things like this happened everyday, it wouldn’t be news.
It is also happening due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government.
I know what you’re thinking – oh yay, another lesson on the Constitution – can’t wait. Well – yep – you’re right.
But first, a perfect example of this ignorance is an anonymous commenter who stated: “The restaurant actually broke the law in this instance, and no it is not equivalent to the courts ruling on the “cake shop” case though many will try to spin it that way.” And please remember that ignorance is not a pejorative – it’s merely a lack of knowledge – unlike stupidity, which is a choice.
Most have heard the saying, “politics stops at the water’s edge,” meaning the oceans which surround us – our borders, such as they are today. Well the same can be said of our United States Constitution. The Constitution not only stops at the water’s edge, but also stops at the edge of our business entrances and our front doors. It was/is always intended to affect and apply to only the national or federal government, not the private sector.
The left describes the document as: “…generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
This is part of a direct quote from Barack Obama. He didn’t present these thoughts as his own, but rather attributed them to the radical leftist progressive Earl “Warren Court,” of the 1950s and `60s. Beside Chief Justice Warren, the leftist court also included Justice Hugo Black, who gave us “separation of church and State,” when he invented it out of thin air. However, Obama wouldn’t have presented it this way if he didn’t concur.
Most on the right have lambasted Obama for this quote, but other than one segment, the part about “what the states can’t do to you,” he is absolutely correct. The Constitution was written expressly to constrain the federal government. It doesn’t matter if we think it fair or how it makes us feel. So if we or they choose to call them “negative liberties,” who cares.
Okay, you may say – maybe the Constitution doesn’t dictate anything about the Sander’s incident, but we have laws that certainly do, as the commentor points out. Yes we do. And they are all unconstitutional.
Allow me to repeat: blah, blah – I’m not a lawyer – blah, blah, not a constitutional scholar, but I can read. And it’s so simple and obvious than anyone can find proof like I did.
Article VI, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”
The federal government is prohibited from making law which isn’t directly attributable to an Article or Amendment of the Constitution, giving them the authority to do so, and whether we like it or not, the document clearly grants no authority.
The only way around it is to amend the Constitution, not to “interpret” it to meet the desires of the political right or left.
This type of discrimination should be no big deal, as the marketplace will always provide alternatives. And a free marketplace will always punish those who unfairly discriminate, without the intrusion of the nanny government.