"As better jobs move in, like U.S. factories, parents can earn more money. As they get more productive overtime they earn even more money and children will no longer be required to work."

The fact that you believe that any country in the developing world requires employers to pay overtime, or even that employers in the developing world pay overtime through their own good graces, makes me wonder sometimes...

"The Supreme Court has been clear on the issue; soldiers do not have to follow illegal orders given to them by their superiors."

But the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that unless an order is blatantly illegal on its face, the order is presumed to be a lawful one until proven otherwise (usually at court-martial).

Soldiers do not have the luxury of disobeying orders because they "believe" they are illegal.

Killer B:

"Being armed -- the absolute freedom of self-defense -- is exactly what the Second Amendment is there to protect, and is part of the foundation this country owes its existence to."

Yes, because your shotgun or pistol is going to be effective against the firepower of the United States Military.

I know many soldiers, and they would tell you their oath is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the lawfully-elected government of same. Anyone who takes up arms against that would be treated as any other enemy, foreign or domestic.

Raising arms against the government WILL not end well - just pick up a history book and see.

"The market was taking care of racism back in the late 1800s until GOVERNMENT LAW forced businesses to segregate because some white people weren't willing to pay extra to have segregated rail cars."

That is the most unbelievable load of baloney I've heard in my life. Either you are so hopelessly lost in your utopian libertarian land that you actually think that racism was being resolved in the 1800s, or you are deliberately distorting history to fit your theory.

Either way, I would suggest you avail yourself of the Heart of Atlanta and Katzenbach cases.

"You're also wrong about enforcing contracts being "separated areas of civil law." That's a legal fiction even if you can come up with any authorities to back you up."

Would you like to start with the Restatement (Third) of Employment Law?

Or the principles of contact - that no contract can exist without an exchange of consideration?

That even though it is called an "employment contract" it is not a true contract because the parties are not of equal power, and is more akin to the common law principles of master-servant or subordination?

Patrick:

Anyone who thinks that private business (NOT a private association like the KKK or Augusta National) has the right to refuse service because of the color of someone's skin is prejudiced, no matter how much they dance around the issue. A person can leave their gun at the door, or choose not to smoke in an establishment. A person can't change the color of their skin.

And we tried solving it where the free market ruled, and it didn't solve the problem. It only exacerbated it.

We already had this constitutional fight 40 years ago, and the courts sided with the government.

Patrick:

Here we go again. BP ignored their own engineer's concerns about safety, allowed a faulty piece of equipment (the blowout preventer) to remain in place knowing it was damaged, falsified safety tests, replaced the "mud" compound at the drill site with salt water (dangerously increasing the risk of a blowout), and permitted a company with an already poor safety record (Halliburton)to apply the cementing.

But it's the government's fault.

You want deregulation? This is what you get with deregulation.

Defending BP like Rand Paul and Sharon Angle are doing is POLITICAL SUICIDE. I want BP held responsible, even if it means bankrupting them.

They screwed up, they own it.

By the way, enforcing contracts between private parties and employment contracts are two fundamentally separated areas of civil law.

Hale v. Henkel has to do with witness testimony in antitrust cases, not with the right of the state to levy taxes upon businesses. Justice Brown's reasoning may be sound, but IT DOES NOT APPLY to the matter at hand.

"In fact Obama has yet at 53 days to talk to the BP CEO Tony Hayward or BO COO Doug Suttles"

The only words I want those two to hear are "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."