| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/10/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34037 Activity:insanely high |
10/11 http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040912/sticker.shtml wrong Bush/Kerry bumper sticker can cost you your job. \_ WTF? Isn't that more than just blatantly illegal? Shouldn't that dumbfuck attorney know that? I hope he receives hells for this. Too bad that poor lady isn't going to sue him. \_ This is exactly why we need tort reform, to prevent frivilous lawsuits like what you're describing! \_ Lordy lordy. The motd really is a parody of itself. \_ How is that at all frivolous? \_ Because the same topics come up again and again and again. The entire motd could be summarized as a read only file that simply said "et cetera ad nauseum." At some point, you start giggling at certain things, like the obligatory tort reform reference above. \_ The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone \- i dont think this is "pretty clear". you have a cite? based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment. Evil ... but legal! \- i dont think this is "pretty clear". you have a cite? \_ http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067578 The sentence I wrote is even taken verbatim from an ACLU rep. \- that is interesting. thanks for the ptr. some comments: it looks like in this case, doing some govt work doesnt turn you into a "public employer" [in constrast to say other "reaches" when it comes to what constitutes "state action"]. the other interesting matter is it says "can fire based on political speech" which is a different matter than beliefs. in other words, if i believe what that italie fellow believed but i only revealed it in a 1:1 conversation started by HR, could i be fired? \_ yes -dbushong i know organizaation such as churches have some increased latitude [ostentsibly a hindu temple could require the janitor to not eat bigmac at work], but this lack of requirement to show it affects the work is sort of surprising. one may have to ask if there were to italies at the job would they have to fire both of them or does that allow for a suit on other grounds. i am surprised the "right to engage in political discourse" isnt better protected ... it seems to merit at least a gay if he believes in gay rights? I guess we are still haunted by the "spectre of Lochner". --psb \_ Well he gave her a chance and she basically put him on the spot. I don't like the guy's action personally but I don't have a problem with it from a legal point of view. She doesn't have an inherent right to be employed by this guy. \_ This is a particularly cold way of putting it, IMO. \_ Well it's private property. By parking her car there she's putting political ads on his property, which he doesn't have to allow if he doesn't feel like it. Capitalism is inherently cold and greed-inducing. \_ I'm not disagreeing with the fact it is completely legal for a private employer to fire an employee for political speech, I'm just saying you put it rather coldly. \_ Could this be an easy way around discrimination lawsuits in racially/politically divided areas? "I didn't hire him, him, and him because they were Democrat. New policy. What? Sure I'll stick to it" \_ Why do leftists always think free speech applies to private property? Maybe because they don't understand the concept of private property? \- we're not talking about an "inherent right to be employed" ... yes, she cant walk in off the street and demand to be hired. i think a much more accurate phrasing is apparently an employer can interfere with your inherent right to participate in the political process, without proving it affects him in any material way. practically anything can be considered a political belief. on the matter of "private property" see e.g. the pruneyard v robins. it's not that absolute. --psb \_ No, if you read the 1st Amendment you would see it really is that simple. Her employer is not Congress. \- No it isnt that simple. Look up the "absorption doctrine". --psb \- It is simple and you are simply wrong. You may wish to google for "slaughterhouse incorporation". Perhaps you have 100+ yrs of constitutional jurisprudence to catch up on? --psb \_ The amendment is pretty clear to me. I'm not interested in polemic redirection. \- it is pretty clear to me your brain is small. --psb \_ Who is the one who can't read the Amendment? Please, what is the psb exegesis of the 1st Amend. \- the 1st amd [and most of the other 1st 10] are now considered "piped" through the 14th amendment. See e.g. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html or anything about the the "incorpriation doctrine". This is settled law. Arguing about this is like arguing the income tax is illegal ... it sets the FRUITCAKE bit. --psb \_ That's a fancy way of saying its obvious. Invoking the 14th Amend. is not, and should not be, necessary. \_ Ok I went and read about the pruneyard case. It was stressed in that case that: "It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment." I find this decision to be problematic. But it was also found to be specific to California's constitution and I think it would be impossible to extend the logic of the case to cover a private factory. I'm not sure what other laws might pertain to this situation. The employer didn't interfere with her right to vote, only her "right" to display a political sign on her car in his parking lot. car in his parking lot. However there are a lot of federal and state laws regulating employment and discrimination beyond any constitutional basis, and I don't have a good understanding of the legal justification for some of those things. \- it is astute of you to observe the narrowing of pruneyard and the state const issue. my point in raising it goes to the non-absoluteness of private property ... and it is sort of fun that it is a local case [for those of you from the south bay]. it is admittedly not a case with an am employee-employer relationship at the heart. also key to pruneyard is the quasi-public space doctrine ... we dont live in a world with public squares and public markets but a world of santana row and stanfraud shoppinng center. back to the case above, it seems odd to me to allow the employer such an incredibly low standard that there is *no standard* [he doenst have to show it does any harm to the business, let alone signficant harm or even possible harm] he has to meet ... but on the other hand he is prevented from terminating on various discrimination grounds. it seems better to to protect fewer specific classification but force the employer to meet some reasonable criteria. otherwise you get weird things like ... i believe in drug legalization so i can be fired. but i believe in it because i am a peyote using indian so i am protected under some kind of religion freedom rather than political freedom. ok tnx --psb \_ PSB, why do you know this stuff? Do you read Supreme Court Opionions in your spare time? \_ I suppose there is a distinction between one's choices and one's characteristics, although \- you may wish to read about the legal concept of (im)mutability which is of interest to the homosexual legal empire. that is an interesting interesection of science and the law. at core it concerns an empirical question. a tougher, philosophiscal problem is how to draw a line between stuff essential to identity and fundamentally tied to a class and "lifestyle choices" ... is peyote a lifestyle choice or fundamental to living as an american indian of some appropriate tribe? what about sodomy, having children, animal sacrifices etc. --psb religion kind of blurs that boundary. Wearing a hijab is protected but not a Kerry sticker. I \- if somebody lived in a socialist commune it seems to me they are at least as ` committed to their "non theistic religion" as a catholic who wears a cross around her neck. it seems odd not to allow you to can somebody for wearing a cross but can can them if they wear an "emma rules" tshirt [ok maybe somebody less nuts than EG]. --psb wonder if Christian car fish things are covered (they're not any religious requirement). Height and weight discrimination can sometimes fall under the disability laws, but something like "fired for just being really ugly" doesn't seem to be protected. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040912/sticker.shtml com 340-2443 MOULTON -- Lynne Gobbell never imagined the cost of a John Kerry-John Edwards bumper sticker could run so high. Lynne Gobbell said her boss fired her last week because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on the back of her car. DAILY Photo by Clyde Stancil Lynne Gobbell said her boss fired her last week because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on the back of her car. Gobbell of Moulton didn't pay a cent for the sticker that she proudly displays on the rear windshield of her Chevrolet Lumina, but said it cost her job at a local factory after it angered her boss, Phil Gaddis. Gaddis, a Decatur bankruptcy attorney, owns Enviromate, a cellulose insulation company in Moulton. Gaddis did not return phone calls from THE DAILY about the alleged Thursday firing. Gobbell said she consulted a lawyer, but then changed her mind about going to see him. She said she has cried about the incident and must do without income for three weeks while the state unemployment commission decides if she is eligible for compensation. Gobbell said she was averaging 50 to 60 hours a week on the plant's bagging machine. "The lady there (at the unemployment commission) said that she has never heard of a firing like this before," Gobbell said. Gobbell gave this account: "We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, " 'I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry,' " Gobbell said. "I took off my gloves and threw them in the garbage and left," Gobbell said. Though she is unemployed and uncertain if she will get her job back, Gobbell said, she doesn't regret her decision to keep the sticker on her windshield. "I would like to find another job, but I would take that job back because I need to work," she said. "It upset me and made me mad that he could put a letter in my check expressing his (political) opinion, but I can't put something on my car expressing mine." She was referring to a flier that she said Gaddis placed in employee envelopes to remind them of the positive impact that President Bush's policies have had on them. An employee at the plant who would not identify himself confirmed the contents of the letter. It says: "Just so you will know, because of the Bush tax (cut): I was able to buy the new Hammer Mill I was able to finance our receivables I was able to get the new CAT skid steer I was able to get the wire cutter I was able to give you a job" It further says: "You got the benefit of the Bush tax cut. |
| slate.msn.com/?id=2067578 Goodwill Industries, the network of nonprofit groups best-known for c ollecting and selling used clothing and furniture in order to provide jo b training for the disabled. Among Goodwill's lesser-known functions is to supply low-cost contract labor to the federal government. Italie's jo b was to sew US Navy jackets in Goodwill's Miami plant. "Because of your views of the US government, which are contrary to those of this agency, you are a disruptive force and cannot work here anymore," he said, according to Italie. Socialist Workers Party, he fa vors creation of a "workers' and farmers' government" in the United Stat es along the lines envisioned by Karl Marx, VI Lenin, and Leon Trotsky . His views had come to management's attention onl y because Italie was making a quixotic run for Miami mayor on the Social ist Workers Party ticket. A few days before his firing, Italie appeared in a TV debate and made several highly provocative remarks. Discussing t he war on terrorism, he invited viewers to "join the fight to build a re volutionary working-class movement that can take power out of the hands of the warmakers." Italie also spoke words that were guaranteed to enrag e Miami voters: "I support the Cuban Revolution." A less sentimental factor that draws Chatterbox to Italie's case is Chatt erbox's belief in the First Amendment. Goodwill makes no bones about the fact that it fired Italie not for any on-the-job conduct but for holdin g views it does not wish to be associated with. "We cannot have anyone w ho is attempting to subvert the United States of America," Dennis Pastra na, chief executive of Goodwill in South Florida, told the Miami Herald on Oct. "His political beliefs are those of a communist who would li ke to destroy private ownership of American enterprises and install a co mmunist regime in the United States." It seems reasonable to ask what business Michael Italie's political convi ctions were to his employer. But when the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union looked into Italie's case, it discovered, as Pastr ana evidently had, that Goodwill was on strong legal footing. "There is no legal case to be brought," explains Miami chapter president Lida Rodr iguez-Taseff. "The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment." A public employ er would be prevented from firing someone based on political speech (bec ause that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech ). Rodriguez-Taseff briefly held out some hope that Goodwill could be ch allenged based on its government contracts. Apparently, though, the case law isn't favorable for government contractors, either. Italie told Cha tterbox that every lawyer he's spoken with has told him essentially the same thing. Chatt erbox tested this hypothesis by describing Italie's case to Ronald Rados h, the virulently anti-Communist writer. "Everybody has a right to run f or mayor on the SWP ticket," Radosh said. The irony is that one can make (and many have made) the case that people like Michael Italie shouldn't be permitted to hold jobs in government, w here at least in theory they have the power to subvert the US system. Yet it is in government where Italie would be protected. In the private sector, where Italie is entirely harmless, he enjoys no protection at al l Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate. READ MESSAGES Notes From the Fray: In the recent Chatterbox article, the claim is made that if Michael Itali e was a government employee his job would have been protected. In fact, because he was participating in partisan politics (running for mayor), h e would not have been able to keep his job (assuming it was a federal jo b). His views alone would be protected but not the way he chose to espou se them. Reel Time: Christopher Reeves Greatest Role The Death of Superman Christopher Reeve died yesterday, in the middle of what everyone acknowle dges was his most ... |
| www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html Americans have been concerned with their rights for hundreds of years. Th e right to practice religion however they wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England. The right of re presentation and self-determination was one of the primary reasons the R evolutionary War was fought. The right for all persons to be free was on e of the reasons the Civil War was fought. Constitutional Convention finished its work, it did not find it necessary to include a bill of ri ghts in the final version. Several members, notably George Mason, were v ery disappointed by this decision and refused to sign the document over the issue. The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new f ederal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were list ed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incompl ete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own consti tutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level. Among the reaso ns listed was a list of the personal protections the new constitution di d contain, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the inviolate habeas corpus, and the restrictions on a conviction of treason. Federali st 85 addressed the subject, too, noting that amendment is always a poss ibility after ratification. It turns out, once the process of ratificati on was complete, that this was exactly the route taken. The first Congress under the Constitution had a lot to accomplish. Articles of Confederation, and every state had interests it wanted to protect. Jame s Madison, seen by many as the father of the Constitution, had won a sea t in the House of Representatives, running partly on a platform that inc luded a fight for a bill of rights. This may seem odd since Madison was one of those who advocated the omission of such a list of rights, but he eventually became convinced of the necessity. Madison tried to get the debate moving, but debate on tariffs and other p ressing issues always pushed the debate on a bill of rights to the back burner. presented his draft of a bill of rights to get the discussion moving. From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list, a long with the lists presented by the states. twelve ar ticles of amendment and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 179 1, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the t ext, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are r eferred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel). Bar to Federal Action The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on th e actions of the federal government. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a fra mework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal go vernment was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, b ecause the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and m any went further than the federal Bill. This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison prop osed in his initial speech: Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be in serted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bil l of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Pervear was lic ensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to ke ep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard l abor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. The Court, again quite succi nctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article o f the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation." As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of pr oof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the st ate. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act , and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or n ullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstituti onal. It was designed to assist newly freed slaves in the transiti on to freedom and to protect them from acts of the Southern states, and also to overturn the decision in the Dred Scott case that ruled that per sons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States even if they were born in the United States. The amendment was successful in this endeavor, legally, if not in reality. But this sentence had and continues to have long-lasting implications on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege s or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State d eprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protecti on of the laws. The "Privileges and Immunities Clause" has been interpreted as applying t he Bill of Rights, which lists the privileges and immunities of the citi zens, to the states. Known as "incorporation," the application of the Bi ll to the states did not come all at once, nor was it complete. Even tod ay, there are some parts of the Bill which have not been incorporated. T he process began unsuccessfully in the late 1800's and continued unsucce ssfully right up until the 1930's. Historians both agreed and disagreed with the Co urt's contention that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended incorpo ration since its passage ... The ir opinions were less important than those of the Justices. This proc ess of incorporating parts of the Bill of Rights because of their connec tion to due process began to run in parallel with the selective incorpor ation doctrine, where parts of the Bill of Rights were ruled to be enfor ceable on the states by virtue of the 14th Amendments, whether or not du e process applied. Thus in the early 1960's, the Establishment Clause, the right to counsel, the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition, and the right agains t unreasonable searches and seizures were quickly incorporated. |