Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn)

[CheeseWhiz]

Oh, I do trust the Midwesterners; I just don’t trust the Southeasterners

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about

[Bono]

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about

"Right" to "colective bargaining".

[CheeseWhiz]

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about

"Right" to "colective bargaining".

So, are you saying that the right to collective bargain legalizes organized crime?

If that is what you’re saying, I’d like to hear what are Emsworth's interpretation of it is.

[Emsworth]

Plus, i disagree that forcing employers to deal with, and workers to be pushed around and estorted by organized crime is a basic right...

I have said that any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the regions unless explicitly stated. By the very same logic, any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to private persons unless explicitly stated.

The collective bargaining clause, under this rule of construction that governs interpretation of the Constitution, means that the government may not prohibit unions. It contains no rule whatsoever governing the action private employers.

There is a right to bear arms. Does that mean that I have to allow everyone to bear arms on my property? It does not--it only means that the government cannot prohibit the bearing of arms.

By the same logic, there is a right to collective bargaining, but it operates only against legislation of the government, never against the actions of private employers.

Whatever the intent of the collective bargaining clause may be, it cannot be interpreted as governing the actions of private individuals in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

[Bono]

Plus, i disagree that forcing employers to deal with, and workers to be pushed around and estorted by organized crime is a basic right...

I have said that any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the regions unless explicitly stated. By the very same logic, any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to private persons unless explicitly stated.

The collective bargaining clause, under this rule of construction that governs interpretation of the Constitution, means that the government may not prohibit unions. It contains no rule whatsoever governing the action private employers.

There is a right to bear arms. Does that mean that I have to allow everyone to bear arms on my property? It does not--it only means that the government cannot prohibit the bearing of arms.

By the same logic, there is a right to collective bargaining, but it operates only against legislation of the government, never against the actions of private employers.

Whatever the intent of the collective bargaining clause may be, it cannot be interpreted as governing the actions of private individuals in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

[CheeseWhiz]

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

Do you have a link to the Southeast right to work laws?

[Emsworth]

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

How so? The Southeast has not banned unions. It has merely provided that people may choose not to join them--there is no violation there.

[Bono]

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

How so? The Southeast has not banned unions. It has merely provided that people may choose not to join them--there is no violation there.

Right to work laws use government power to prohibit close shop deals that would limit workers choices of dealing or not with the unions.
Plus, never mind this, with Peter Bell and Ernest on the court there is no way that clause would be interpreted like that. They'd just make up some other inanity of the sort of that "items of commerce" nonsense.

[CheeseWhiz]

Well, I found the Southeast Right to Work laws, and I don’t see anything that conflicts, but then again I’m not too knowledgeable in this area, so…

[Sam Spade]

Of course, the Supremacy Clause prevents the regions from applying laws that contradict the Constitution. But regional laws that violate the Bill of Rights do not contradict the Constitution.

In Barron v. Baltimore, John Marshall said that the People adopted the Bill of Rights "for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States." He said that "no limitation of the action of [the federal] government ... would apply to the State government," and that any provision, "however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation," unless it is specifically provided that a state shall be so restrained.

So, yes, the Supremacy Clause prevents a state from violating the Constitution. But a region denying freedom of speech, or gun rights, does not violate the Constitution. As it currently stands, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on federal, not regional power.

I am familiar with the case you quote and if the Supreme Court of Atlasia would apply it as such, then it would be relevant.

Fact remains is that this is Atlasia, not the United States.  However correct that John Marshall's words are, the thrust behind the ruling might not be viewed as correct by the present Supreme Court.

We have not yet had any rulings in front of the Supreme Court that challenged Article VI, so henceforth our precedent in Atlasian jurisprudence is rather thin, and there is nothing that says that Marshall's words would apply here.

In addition, the context in which the Atlasian "Bill of Rights" was adopted differs from the United States.  In the United States, the Bill of Rights was a last minute addition to the Constitution, which formed ten amendments.  In Atlasia, the so-called "Bill of Rights", Article VI, was adopted immediately as necessary within the Constitution and forms a vital part of it.

Also, the wording of the Amendments differs, to a great enough extent to where words could easily be interpreted to mean both Regional and Federal governments.

For example, in the United States, the reading of Amendment I is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In Atlasia, the corresponding Article VI, Clause 1 reads, "No agency of government shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Whereas in the American version, the wording is clear as to apply to Congress, in the Atlasian version, the wording is more vague.  Must an agency of government be only federal or can it also apply to the Regions, who certainly have agencies of government.

The Supreme Court would have to rule as to exactly what an "agency of government" is in order for us to get a better understanding of where exactly Article VI applies in the federal government and the Regions.

With the lack of relevant precedent, my opinion is that we take the cautious road, instead of the lackadaisical one.  When a case arrives before the Supreme Court that challenges the application of the Bill of Rights on a Regional level, then and only then should we decide how to amend our Constitution to fit the parameters of that ruling and its decision, if need be.

If we pass such a general and overarching amendment such as the one presently before us, we risk the law of unintended consequences creating more problems than we can solve and giving the Supreme Court greater leverage to impose its own ideals of what violates the clause over us.

[Emsworth]

Right to work laws use government power to prohibit close shop deals that would limit workers choices of dealing or not with the unions.

Well, from a libertarian perspective, closed shops should not be prohibited, and neither should yellow dog contracts, but that's another matter.

The right to work laws improve freedom for the worker, not restrict it. There is no way in which a regional right to work law would be held unconstitutional, in my view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But surely that was just an oversight. How exactly does regulating "standards of weights and measures" involve setting a minimum wage? Surely, any reasonable court would conclude otherwise.

[Emsworth]

We have not yet had any rulings in front of the Supreme Court that challenged Article VI, so henceforth our precedent in Atlasian jurisprudence is rather thin, and there is nothing that says that Marshall's words would apply here.

The same rules of interpretation which apply to the U.S. Constitution apply to the Atlasian Constitution--the rules prescribed by common law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is not relevant in any way, in my opinion. For example, the original U.S. Constitution provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." But the courts have always held that the states may suspend the writ at their pleasure, even though it is a part of the original Constitution. This indicates, I think, that whether the Bill of Rights was a part of the original Constitution is not relevant to the proper interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment I is the only amendment to say so. The other seven of the first eight amendments do not make any reference to the federal government. But that does not mean that the other seven amendments applied to the states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would hardly call this lackadaisical. It is very carefully crafted, and excludes anything that might give rise to substantive due process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would respectfully disagree here. You have said that the Bill of Rights already applies to the regions. Then how does this amendment give rise to any new unintended consequences? If the Bill of Rights does already apply as you suggest, then those consequences would come about anyway, whether this amendment is passed or not.

[Bono]

Right to work laws use government power to prohibit close shop deals that would limit workers choices of dealing or not with the unions.

Well, from a libertarian perspective, closed shops should not be prohibited, and neither should yellow dog contracts, but that's another matter.

Of course not, but this is not what this is about. I was elected to defend the laws of the Southeast.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the "right to colective bargaining" is merely protecting from government intervention against forming unions, this would be covered under the freedom of asociation clause.

[Emsworth]

If the "right to colective bargaining" is merely protecting from government intervention against forming unions, this would be covered under the freedom of asociation clause.

I believe that there is only an explicit right to peacable assembly, not association (and there is a difference). So the collective bargaining clause is not entirely redundant.

I do not believe that this amendment will have any unfortunate consequences such as giving rise to a right to privacy, abortion, or liberty of contract. It was crafted quite carefully to exclude substantive due process.

I am, however, mindful of the federalism argument. It has certainly been very persuasive, although I am not fully convinced yet. On the one hand, I would trust the People of each Region to pass their own laws. On the other hand, I strongly believe that all governments ought to be restrained so as to prevent tyranny. While I am not entirely a fan of the unintended consequences argument, I do consider the federalism argument to be quite strong--so I will reserve my view on the subject for now.

[Bono]

If the "right to colective bargaining" is merely protecting from government intervention against forming unions, this would be covered under the freedom of asociation clause.

I believe that there is only an explicit right to peacable assembly, not association (and there is a difference). So the collective bargaining clause is not entirely redundant.

I do not believe that this amendment will have any unfortunate consequences such as giving rise to a right to privacy, abortion, or liberty of contract. It was crafted quite carefully to exclude substantive due process.

I am, however, mindful of the federalism argument. It has certainly been very persuasive, although I am not fully convinced yet. On the one hand, I would trust the People of each Region to pass their own laws. On the other hand, I strongly believe that all governments ought to be restrained so as to prevent tyranny. While I am not entirely a fan of the unintended consequences argument, I do consider the federalism argument to be quite strong--so I will reserve my view on the subject for now.

Don't you trust the federal government to be restrained by its own bill of rights? Why not trust regions to be restrained by their own bill of rights?

[Emsworth]

Don't you trust the federal government to be restrained by its own bill of rights? Why not trust regions to be restrained by their own bill of rights?

Historically, it is true that the states have respected rightes less regularly than the federal government (slavery, segregation, and similar oppressive practices come to mind). However, Atlasia is probably quite different--our regions are unlikely to commit such abuses. A rather difficult question then...

[CheeseWhiz]

I am, however, mindful of the federalism argument. It has certainly been very persuasive, although I am not fully convinced yet. On the one hand, I would trust the People of each Region to pass their own laws. On the other hand, I strongly believe that all governments ought to be restrained so as to prevent tyranny. While I am not entirely a fan of the unintended consequences argument, I do consider the federalism argument to be quite strong--so I will reserve my view on the subject for now.

Yes, I agree.

[Ebowed]

Well, Bono's argument is very convincing, so I withdraw this amendment from the floor.