PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues CBA...why is it a Right?


petegz28
03-01-2011, 03:21 PM
I keep hearing that CBA's for public union workers is a "right". How so? Where is this Right in the Constitution or any other official document? Secondly, why do they deserve this as a right when the majority of us who work in the private sector have no such right? Why can't public sector workers simply enjoy and embrance the fact they get better benefits at cheaper costs than those who pay their salaries? Salaries I might add that are very competitive and in some cases better than the private sector people who pay them?

BucEyedPea
03-01-2011, 03:24 PM
It's what you call a "political" right, which means it was given to them via politics and government. Those kind of rights can be taken away since they are not natural inalienable rights which precede govt and come from our humanity in a state of nature. They cannot be rightfully taken away. So CBRs are rights to commies and leftists who support the UN Charter of Human Rights a commie document. The term was coined by Beatrice Webb ( Potter) who was a committed socialist.

tooge
03-01-2011, 03:26 PM
I actually have a problem with CBA's for any union. In my profession (dentistry), if all the dentists in the state decided to go on strike until the insurance paid a certain amount, we would all lose our license and be charged with collusion. These unions piss me off all together. Ok, flame away.

healthpellets
03-01-2011, 03:29 PM
states don't have to recognize public employee unions. it's their choice, IIRC.

and private employers don't have to recognize unions either (i.e. Wal-Mart) if they choose to operate in a manner that prevents the formation of unions.

Brock
03-01-2011, 03:37 PM
What do you mean by "the majority of us who work in the private sector have no such right"?

go bowe
03-01-2011, 03:41 PM
It's what you call a "political" right, which means it was given to them via politics and government. Those kind of rights can be taken away since they are not natural inalienable rights which precede govt and come from our humanity in a state of nature. They cannot be rightfully taken away. So CBRs are rights to commies and leftists who support the UN Charter of Human Rights a commie document. The term was coined by Beatrice Webb ( Potter) who was a committed socialist.good God, honey...

even for you, this is utterly hilarious...

BucEyedPea
03-01-2011, 03:43 PM
states don't have to recognize public employee unions. it's their choice, IIRC.

and private employers don't have to recognize unions either (i.e. Wal-Mart) if they choose to operate in a manner that prevents the formation of unions.

Exactly. Which shows it's not a right. People are free to join one but employers don't have to recognize them either. Socialists think this pov is ridiculous though.

petegz28
03-01-2011, 03:43 PM
What do you mean by "the majority of us who work in the private sector have no such right"?

I think you if you did the math you would see that the majority of the people in the private sector do not have a CBA. Nor do we have a right to one. Where am I wrong there?

Brock
03-01-2011, 03:45 PM
I think you if you did the math you would see that the majority of the people in the privage sector do not have a CBA. Nor do we have a right to one. Where am I wrong there?

You have the right to organize if you want to. Unions didn't just fall out of the sky, they were a reaction by the people to corporation behavior.

petegz28
03-01-2011, 03:47 PM
You have the right to organize if you want to. Unions didn't just fall out of the sky, they were a reaction by the people to corporation behavior.

I never said you don't have a right to organize. I said where is the right to a CBA?

Brock
03-01-2011, 03:49 PM
I never said you don't have a right to organize. I said where is the right to a CBA?

Well.....you have to organize first. ?

BucEyedPea
03-01-2011, 03:52 PM
Collective Bargaining is NOT a Right (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/01/collective-bargaining-is-not-a-right/)

There is a big difference between rights and privileges. Americans have the right to vote. The state, barring a felony conviction, can not take that right away. Driving, on the hand, is privilege. The state can refuse you the privilege of driving for a myriad of reasons including failure to pass a test showing you know the rules of the road or failing to purchase auto insurance.

Similarly the freedom of association is a right shared by all Americans and protected by the First Amendment. In contrast, collective bargaining is a special power occasionally granted to some unions. In upholding North Carolina’s ban on government union collective bargaining, a federal court wrote in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”

Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) budget bill in Wisconsin in no way infringes on any Americans’ right to associate and lobby government. What it does do is allow Wisconsin employees to choose not to join a union and keep their job at the same time. It also forces the government unions in Wisconsin to collect their own union dues instead of using the power of the state to withhold them directly from employee paychecks.

Now there is a question you’ll never see in a New York Times poll:
“Do you favor forcing all state employees to join a union and empowering government unions to take union dues directly from employee paychecks?”

petegz28
03-01-2011, 03:59 PM
Well.....you have to organize first. ?

What does that have to do with having the right to a CBA?

petegz28
03-01-2011, 04:00 PM
Collective Bargaining is NOT a Right (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/01/collective-bargaining-is-not-a-right/)

There is a big difference between rights and privileges. Americans have the right to vote. The state, barring a felony conviction, can not take that right away. Driving, on the hand, is privilege. The state can refuse you the privilege of driving for a myriad of reasons including failure to pass a test showing you know the rules of the road or failing to purchase auto insurance.

Similarly the freedom of association is a right shared by all Americans and protected by the First Amendment. In contrast, collective bargaining is a special power occasionally granted to some unions. In upholding North Carolina’s ban on government union collective bargaining, a federal court wrote in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”

Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) budget bill in Wisconsin in no way infringes on any Americans’ right to associate and lobby government. What it does do is allow Wisconsin employees to choose not to join a union and keep their job at the same time. It also forces the government unions in Wisconsin to collect their own union dues instead of using the power of the state to withhold them directly from employee paychecks.

Now there is a question you’ll never see in a New York Times poll:
“Do you favor forcing all state employees to join a union and empowering government unions to take union dues directly from employee paychecks?”

excellent post

Brock
03-01-2011, 04:02 PM
What does that have to do with having the right to a CBA?

It has everything to do with it. You get the right to a CBA when you organize and vote your bargaining unit into a union. I don't understand your confusion.

BucEyedPea
03-01-2011, 04:13 PM
It has everything to do with it. You get the right to a CBA when you organize and vote your bargaining unit into a union. I don't understand your confusion.

That does not make it a fundamental right though. I don't understand your confusion.

Brock
03-01-2011, 04:15 PM
That does not make it a fundamental right though. I don't understand your confusion.

Honey, I don't really care to argue about how it works on your planet. I'm talking about how it works here, in the USA.

petegz28
03-01-2011, 04:16 PM
It has everything to do with it. You get the right to a CBA when you organize and vote your bargaining unit into a union. I don't understand your confusion.

No, that is incorrect. You do not have a right to a CBa just because you form a union.

BucEyedPea
03-01-2011, 04:17 PM
Honey, I don't really care to argue about how it works on your planet. I'm talking about how it works here, in the USA.

That is how it works in the USA, Brockoli, as shown in an earlier post.

Brock
03-01-2011, 04:23 PM
No, that is incorrect. You do not have a right to a CBa just because you form a union.

Okay, Pete. Explain to me, to your understanding, how a cba gets done.

patteeu
03-01-2011, 04:37 PM
It has everything to do with it. You get the right to a CBA when you organize and vote your bargaining unit into a union. I don't understand your confusion.

Then you shouldn't need a law to enable it.

petegz28
03-01-2011, 06:07 PM
Okay, Pete. Explain to me, to your understanding, how a cba gets done.

Through a contractual agreement?? What law exists that states you are entitled to a CBA, thus making it a right?

banyon
03-01-2011, 07:41 PM
Through a contractual agreement?? What law exists that states you are entitled to a CBA, thus making it a right?

Collective Bargaining agreements are contracts. The right is a contractual one.

Just like you own a car because you signed an agreement exchanging money for the right to own and drive your car

That "right" isn't in the constitution either, but it's pretty obtuse to say that if a right isn't in the constitution it doesn't exist. Your right to own your car isn't in the Constitution either, but you negotiated for that right be exchanging a promise to pay for it. If the Constitution enumerated every right everyone had to everything, it would probably be a document that would be taller than the Sears Tower.

Saul Good
03-01-2011, 07:43 PM
Collective Bargaining agreements are contracts. The right is a contractual one.

Just like you own a car because you signed an agreement exchanging money for the right to own and drive your car

That "right" isn't in the constitution either, but it's pretty obtuse to say that if a right isn't in the constitution it doesn't exist. Your right to own your car isn't in the Constitution either, but you negotiated for that right be exchanging a promise to pay for it. If the Constitution enumerated every right everyone had to everything, it would probably be a document that would be taller than the Sears Tower.

So these employees have a right to have the state agree to negotiate in this manner?

petegz28
03-01-2011, 08:04 PM
Collective Bargaining agreements are contracts. The right is a contractual one.

Just like you own a car because you signed an agreement exchanging money for the right to own and drive your car

That "right" isn't in the constitution either, but it's pretty obtuse to say that if a right isn't in the constitution it doesn't exist. Your right to own your car isn't in the Constitution either, but you negotiated for that right be exchanging a promise to pay for it. If the Constitution enumerated every right everyone had to everything, it would probably be a document that would be taller than the Sears Tower.

You pretty much proved my entire point, banyon. They have no right to a CBA if there is not contract. Yet we hear from all these people they have a "right" to a CBA only for some reason they call it a "right to work". You have no legal right to a CBA unless it is agreed upon in a contract.

banyon
03-01-2011, 08:05 PM
So these employees have a right to have the state agree to negotiate in this manner?

Currently their collective bargaining right is protected by statute. So, no, the State can't agree to do differently or they would be in violation of the statute.

This is of course the Statute the Governor seeks to change:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf

banyon
03-01-2011, 08:06 PM
You pretty much proved my entire point, banyon. They have no right to a CBA if there is not contract. Yet we hear from all these people they have a "right" to a CBA only for some reason they call it a "right to work". You have no legal right to a CBA unless it is agreed upon in a contract.

Also it is statutory in this case. So no, rights can derive from statutes as well.

petegz28
03-01-2011, 08:20 PM
Also it is statutory in this case. So no, rights can derive from statutes as well.

Just out of curiosity, htf does this become a statute? My heart bleeds for the unions....nothing like people bitching about having to chip in like everyone else and deal with the shit everyone else deals with.

Saul Good
03-01-2011, 08:21 PM
Currently their collective bargaining right is protected by statute. So, no, the State can't agree to do differently or they would be in violation of the statute.

This is of course the Statute the Governor seeks to change:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf

So it's not a right, then.

patteeu
03-01-2011, 08:51 PM
Currently their collective bargaining right is protected by statute. So, no, the State can't agree to do differently or they would be in violation of the statute.

This is of course the Statute the Governor seeks to change:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf

This is the point that petegz28 is getting at, I think. Public employees don't have a right to the existence of this statute.

Saul Good
03-01-2011, 09:01 PM
This is the point that petegz28 is getting at, I think. Public employees don't have a right to the existence of this statute.

I can't speak for Pete, but it's what I was getting at. It seems to me that there are rights (outlined in the BOR), and there are things that are currently legal. Collective bargaining is currently legal.

patteeu
03-01-2011, 09:04 PM
I can't speak for Pete, but it's what I was getting at. It seems to me that there are rights (outlined in the BOR), and there are things that are currently legal. Collective bargaining is currently legal.

Yeah, I didn't see your post until after I replied to banyon, but I recognized that I was essentially repeating you... again. :)

petegz28
03-01-2011, 09:06 PM
This is the point that petegz28 is getting at, I think. Public employees don't have a right to the existence of this statute.

Unions are a bunch of crap anymore. I think what the Wis. Gov. is doing is awesome. Make it voluntary to join the Union and YOU pay your Union Dues instead of the State withholding them for you. Plus the whole CBA thing is a crock of BS. They are crying about not having a CBA while everyone who pays their salary deals with things like "At Will" employment.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2011, 09:09 PM
The right acts as though the recession never happened.

The recession dragged the economy down, vastly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. This predictably results in a reduced tax base and corresponding increase in the use of safety net dollars (e.g. unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps). You have a situation where the states are bringing in less money while paying more out.

The right creates a fantasy narrative featuring reckless spending and governments at the mercy of organized labor while ignoring the actual causes of the budget shortfalls.

Cynically, the population most victimized by the recession (the poor and middle class) are instead made the culprits of it. Even more insanely, we're told to bear the brunt of it, making cut backs and sacrifices while the rich get a payroll tax holiday.

Psyko Tek
03-01-2011, 09:25 PM
and some how all of them give tax cuts to the rich

how's that trickley-downy thing been workin'
the last 10 years?
not so much

patteeu
03-01-2011, 09:44 PM
and some how all of them give tax cuts to the rich

how's that trickley-downy thing been workin'
the last 10 years?
not so much

You're lucky you didn't have to face the alternative.

CrazyPhuD
03-02-2011, 12:12 AM
It has everything to do with it. You get the right to a CBA when you organize and vote your bargaining unit into a union. I don't understand your confusion.

Yes ignoring some of the other issues heres' one of my major problems. If I vote to join a union fine. But if I don't want to I should also be able to say no I don't want to work under one and be bound to the same contract that was negotiated. The problem is there are certain jobs that would require you to be union and THAT is 110% bullshit. Being union shouldn't be a condition for anyone to work.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 09:33 AM
One big problem with this thread is the overuse or lack of understanding of the word "right".

In broad terms, a "right", in the legal sense, is a benefit, privilege or ability to do something (or refrain from doing something) which is legally enforceable and usually but not always results in a "duty" or "obligation" on another party.

You could spend an entire philosophy class on this stuff, but rights can be inalienable (from God, or nature, or however you want to describe it), or given by the Constitution, any state constitution, statute, law or private contract.

There are a number of statutes which give workers the "right" to organize into unions, in which case they obtain for themselves, potentially, additional rights, including the ability to collectively bargain the terms of their employment with their employer, which results in a "collective bargaining agreement", or CBA, which itself will delineate (by private contract) additional rights that the workers may enjoy.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 09:38 AM
Yes ignoring some of the other issues heres' one of my major problems. If I vote to join a union fine. But if I don't want to I should also be able to say no I don't want to work under one and be bound to the same contract that was negotiated. The problem is there are certain jobs that would require you to be union and THAT is 110% bullshit. Being union shouldn't be a condition for anyone to work.


I am not a labor lawyer, but my understanding is that the theory is that non-union employees will often get many of the benefits (without cost to such employees) that accrue to the union employees as a result of the unionization of the workplace.

More importantly, if employers could freely hire non-union workers, and fire union workers, then union/labor laws would be pretty damn worthless. Here in 2011 that may sound like a great idea, but in 1911 there were some really damn good reaosns to keep employers from doing whatever the hell they wanted.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 09:39 AM
I can't speak for Pete, but it's what I was getting at. It seems to me that there are rights (outlined in the BOR), and there are things that are currently legal. Collective bargaining is currently legal.

Rights are far more than whatever is in the Constitution. Yours are just "Constitutional Rights".

healthpellets
03-02-2011, 09:53 AM
Yes ignoring some of the other issues heres' one of my major problems. If I vote to join a union fine. But if I don't want to I should also be able to say no I don't want to work under one and be bound to the same contract that was negotiated. The problem is there are certain jobs that would require you to be union and THAT is 110% bullshit. Being union shouldn't be a condition for anyone to work.

this is the issue in Indiana. they legislature is attempting to pass a "Right to Work" statute.

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2011, 09:55 AM
One big problem with this thread is the overuse or lack of understanding of the word "right".

In broad terms, a "right", in the legal sense, is a benefit, privilege or ability to do something (or refrain from doing something) which is legally enforceable and usually but not always results in a "duty" or "obligation" on another party.

You could spend an entire philosophy class on this stuff, but rights can be inalienable (from God, or nature, or however you want to describe it), or given by the Constitution, any state constitution, statute, law or private contract.

There are a number of statutes which give workers the "right" to organize into unions, in which case they obtain for themselves, potentially, additional rights, including the ability to collectively bargain the terms of their employment with their employer, which results in a "collective bargaining agreement", or CBA, which itself will delineate (by private contract) additional rights that the workers may enjoy.

The Teabaggers aren't interested in facts; only hyperbole, demagoguery, and other distortions.

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 10:01 AM
The Teabaggers aren't interested in facts; only hyperbole, demagoguery, and other distortions.

ROFL

patteeu
03-02-2011, 10:13 AM
Rights are far more than whatever is in the Constitution. Yours are just "Constitutional Rights".

Then people should stop whining about having their "rights" taken away as if someone is amputating their legs. If we're going to use the expansive definition of rights that you've advanced then losing one's rights is really not that big of a deal. Just recently, I lost my right to drive 65 mph on a nearby highway when the local government lowered the speed limit to 60. HITLER!

patteeu
03-02-2011, 10:15 AM
The Teabaggers aren't interested in facts; only hyperbole, demagoguery, and other distortions.

One definition among many for a word isn't really the kind of immutable fact that would make a comment like this reasonable.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2011, 10:19 AM
One definition among many for a word isn't really the kind of immutable fact that would make a comment like this reasonable.

Conflation, evasion, and deflection aren't a reasonable response to logic and reason either.

That doesn't stop teabaggers from their propaganda, half-truths, and outright lies though.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 10:20 AM
Then people should stop whining about having their "rights" taken away as if someone is amputating their legs. If we're going to use the expansive definition of rights that you've advanced then losing one's rights is really not that big of a deal. Just recently, I lost my right to drive 65 mph on a nearby highway when the local government lowered the speed limit to 60. HITLER!


:shrug: "Rights" can be used in many ways. If a bunch of people fighting for some contractual right want to act like it's actually a Constitutional right (a bit of a difference there), as part of the political gamesmanship being waged against a governor who is trying to take some legitimate budgetary concerns and some legitimate issues with governmental unions and roll it up to do some union-busting and Democrat-party busting, then that's also their "right" (in the freedom of speech sense).

:p

patteeu
03-02-2011, 10:26 AM
Conflation, evasion, and deflection aren't a reasonable response to logic and reason either.

That doesn't stop teabaggers from their propaganda, half-truths, and outright lies though.

I hope you took a sick day today to recover.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2011, 10:38 AM
I hope you took a sick day today to recover.

I hope your unemployment experience has been otherwise productive for you.

BucEyedPea
03-02-2011, 11:37 AM
:shrug: "Rights" can be used in many ways. If a bunch of people fighting for some contractual right want to act like it's actually a Constitutional right (a bit of a difference there), as part of the political gamesmanship being waged against a governor who is trying to take some legitimate budgetary concerns and some legitimate issues with governmental unions and roll it up to do some union-busting and Democrat-party busting, then that's also their "right" (in the freedom of speech sense).

:p

It's political gamemenship to one side and a legitimate to the other side. It just depends on who's side your on. Just a matter of opinion.

BucEyedPea
03-02-2011, 11:41 AM
One big problem with this thread is the overuse or lack of understanding of the word "right".

In broad terms, a "right", in the legal sense, is a benefit, privilege or ability to do something (or refrain from doing something) which is legally enforceable and usually but not always results in a "duty" or "obligation" on another party.

You could spend an entire philosophy class on this stuff, but rights can be inalienable (from God, or nature, or however you want to describe it), or given by the Constitution, any state constitution, statute, law or private contract.

There are a number of statutes which give workers the "right" to organize into unions, in which case they obtain for themselves, potentially, additional rights, including the ability to collectively bargain the terms of their employment with their employer, which results in a "collective bargaining agreement", or CBA, which itself will delineate (by private contract) additional rights that the workers may enjoy.

The US Constitution doesn't give rights. That's the hallmark of European Constitutions which can take rights away. This is a very important philosophical difference between our system and other systems on this earth.

The US Constitution is a negative rights document. The Bill of Rights was added later. However, when the left finally understands that it was written primarily to restrain the Federal govt and that is' a document of "specific and enumerated" powers granted to that govt, maybe they'll finally understand what natural inalienable rights are versus political rights. You have to use an adjective in front of the word so there is a meeting of the minds as to what is being discussed.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 01:13 PM
The US Constitution doesn't give rights. That's the hallmark of European Constitutions which can take rights away. This is a very important philosophical difference between our system and other systems on this earth.

The US Constitution is a negative rights document. The Bill of Rights was added later. However, when the left finally understands that it was written primarily to restrain the Federal govt and that is' a document of "specific and enumerated" powers granted to that govt, maybe they'll finally understand what natural inalienable rights are versus political rights. You have to use an adjective in front of the word so there is a meeting of the minds as to what is being discussed.

The "Bill of Rights" is PART OF the Constitution. When you amend a document, then that IS the document, as so amended. The Bill of Rights is not a separate, stand alone piece of paper.

On Planet BEP you can think of things however you want. Here in America when I say "Constitutional Rights", then most reasonably well educated people know what I'm talking about. Specifically, Rights that are enumerated in the US Constitution. Whether the Constitution was the original "source" of those rights or not, they are enumerated there, and therefore have a special place in our legal system.

Second, you can pound on the "the Constitution is there to restrain the federal government" drum all you want, but it's fundamentally wrong. The Constitution apportions powers between the states and the federal government, mostly by specifically setting forth what the powers of the federal government are. Because of concerns of an unlimited federal government, the Bill of Rights was adopted to set forth certain specific limitations on those federal powers.

Your view of the Constitution is wrong, and has always been wrong, because you constantly try to turn it into the Articles of Confederation -- a document that established such a pathetic, weak government that it was discarded within a decade by the founding fathers. So sorry, but your side lost that argument ~220 years ago.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 01:19 PM
Just READ the bloody thing. Article after article saying that this or that branch or house or whatever "shall" do this and may do this, capped by the broad grant of powers given in Article I, Section 8. Then specific limits on the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 9, followed by prohibitions on the states set forth in Article I, Section 10.

Regardless of what happens on Planet BEP, the reality is that the PEOPLE of the United States set forth in the Constitution the apportionment of governmental powers between the federal and state governments. The states did not create the federal government, nor did the states or the people pass the Constitution merely to tell the federal government what it couldn't do. The notion is ludicrous on its face.

go bowe
03-02-2011, 01:35 PM
ludicrous = planet bep...

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 04:33 PM
The right acts as though the recession never happened.

The recession dragged the economy down, vastly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. This predictably results in a reduced tax base and corresponding increase in the use of safety net dollars (e.g. unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps). You have a situation where the states are bringing in less money while paying more out.

The right creates a fantasy narrative featuring reckless spending and governments at the mercy of organized labor while ignoring the actual causes of the budget shortfalls.

Cynically, the population most victimized by the recession (the poor and middle class) are instead made the culprits of it. Even more insanely, we're told to bear the brunt of it, making cut backs and sacrifices while the rich get a payroll tax holiday.

Thats why the communist comrades in Madison need to be vigilant and not follow that teaparty fascists propaganda , we need true class struggle a great leap forward towards a cultural revolution more green energy to produce electronic cars and other things that make peoples lives better, homes for everyone and free top quality healthcare.

KC native
03-02-2011, 04:55 PM
and some how all of them give tax cuts to the rich

how's that trickley-downy thing been workin'
the last 30 years?
not so much

FYP

KC native
03-02-2011, 04:56 PM
The right acts as though the recession never happened.

The recession dragged the economy down, vastly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. This predictably results in a reduced tax base and corresponding increase in the use of safety net dollars (e.g. unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps). You have a situation where the states are bringing in less money while paying more out.

The right creates a fantasy narrative featuring reckless spending and governments at the mercy of organized labor while ignoring the actual causes of the budget shortfalls.

Cynically, the population most victimized by the recession (the poor and middle class) are instead made the culprits of it. Even more insanely, we're told to bear the brunt of it, making cut backs and sacrifices while the rich get a payroll tax holiday.

This.

go bowe
03-02-2011, 06:07 PM
Honey, I don't really care to argue about how it works on your planet. I'm talking about how it works here, in the USA.:bravo:

banyon
03-02-2011, 10:31 PM
The "Bill of Rights" is PART OF the Constitution. When you amend a document, then that IS the document, as so amended. The Bill of Rights is not a separate, stand alone piece of paper.

On Planet BEP you can think of things however you want. Here in America when I say "Constitutional Rights", then most reasonably well educated people know what I'm talking about. Specifically, Rights that are enumerated in the US Constitution. Whether the Constitution was the original "source" of those rights or not, they are enumerated there, and therefore have a special place in our legal system.

Second, you can pound on the "the Constitution is there to restrain the federal government" drum all you want, but it's fundamentally wrong. The Constitution apportions powers between the states and the federal government, mostly by specifically setting forth what the powers of the federal government are. Because of concerns of an unlimited federal government, the Bill of Rights was adopted to set forth certain specific limitations on those federal powers.

Your view of the Constitution is wrong, and has always been wrong, because you constantly try to turn it into the Articles of Confederation -- a document that established such a pathetic, weak government that it was discarded within a decade by the founding fathers. So sorry, but your side lost that argument ~220 years ago.

The only thing I can add to this excellent critique is that simply reviewing the 18th and 21st Amendments should tell you how wrong the view is, when a right (to drink alcohol) was specifically taken away and restored.

mlyonsd
03-02-2011, 10:51 PM
The right acts as though the recession never happened.

The recession dragged the economy down, vastly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. This predictably results in a reduced tax base and corresponding increase in the use of safety net dollars (e.g. unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps). You have a situation where the states are bringing in less money while paying more out.

The right creates a fantasy narrative featuring reckless spending and governments at the mercy of organized labor while ignoring the actual causes of the budget shortfalls.

Cynically, the population most victimized by the recession (the poor and middle class) are instead made the culprits of it. Even more insanely, we're told to bear the brunt of it, making cut backs and sacrifices while the rich get a payroll tax holiday.

JFC you don't have a clue.

J Diddy
03-02-2011, 10:59 PM
The US Constitution doesn't give rights. That's the hallmark of European Constitutions which can take rights away. This is a very important philosophical difference between our system and other systems on this earth.

The US Constitution is a negative rights document. The Bill of Rights was added later. However, when the left finally understands that it was written primarily to restrain the Federal govt and that is' a document of "specific and enumerated" powers granted to that govt, maybe they'll finally understand what natural inalienable rights are versus political rights. You have to use an adjective in front of the word so there is a meeting of the minds as to what is being discussed.

How in the heck do you get that at all?

CrazyPhuD
03-09-2011, 03:54 PM
Will probably never pass....but this I like..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/gop-senators-introduce-national-right-work-restrict-unions/