Collective bargaining "rights"??

[JBeukema]

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

You fail civics 101

OMG! NONE of you understand it.

The Constitution doesn't GIVE anything!

I never said it did

The Constitution is the contract WE THE PEOPLE have made with our government.

No, it's not. There was no government to be a party to the Constitution. COTUS is a codification of the social contract by which the government was created and recognized.

The government is a product of, not a party the social contract codified in the Constitution.

The rights listed are ones WE THE PEOPLE have claimed for ourselves

there are no implied "rights" in the Constitution.

Have you read the Bill of Rights?

And in spite of liberals like Obama

Obama is hardly a Liberal. Hell, the guy sits to my left.

Since you've been wrong on everything so far, I'll not bother reading the rest.

 

[BenNatuf]

BTW, with the classroom example, I do have plenty of things I can do to compel attendance. I can contact advisors, administration, parents, give pop quizzes, etc. I can even get their financial aid pulled if I can document they have excessive absence (wild right?).

That still doesn't make it necessarily against the rules for them to skip unless there is a specific rule in the syllabus to that effect.

A lot of folks in this thread are making the false assumption that the ability to compel attendance means that they are legally obliged to attend. The Legislature is meeting in Madison, it just lacks quorum.

The STATE has the constitutional AUTHORITY to compel attendance by FORCE. Failure to comply with the VALID authority of the state is by definition "illegal".

 

[California Girl]

If you "support" the gutless maneuver of "denying a quorum" then you really aren't interested much in either democracy in general or a representative democracy in particular.

It looks like the Governor may now call for special elections to replace the fucking pussy Democrap Wisconsin "legislators" who have left their posts and fled their state. Screw 'em. Wisconsin Constitution ART. IV, Section 14.

"Filling vacancies. SECTION 14. The governor shall issue
writs of election to fill such vacancies as may occur in either
house of the legislature."

Those seats are pretty fucking VACANT. Boot them the fuck OUT!

Typical Lieability. Lots of cursing. Vaguely bullying tone. And totally missing the point.

Bullying? For fucks sake, it's the damned internet. Nobody can be 'bullied' on the net, you hysterical twit.

Jeeeeez, damned lefties and their fucking whining.

 

[BenNatuf]

No, it is not a silly distinction. Filibuster is a recognized, acceptable form of delay. Denying quorom is not. The proof is demonstrated in the Wisconsin constitution which gives the governor and present legislators the power to compel absent lawmakers to appear. If quorom was an acceptable form of delay, why would the power to compel an end to the delay be granted?

That's a bit like asking "if a filibuster was an acceptable form of delay, why would the power to end a filibuster be granted by Rule 22?" Paper wraps rock but scissors cut paper. The existence of Kryptonite doesn't imply Superman doesn't have superpowers.

Yet another canard, the majority cannot force an end to a filibuster, a filibuster ends when the MINORITY loses adequate support to sustain it. 51 Senators (a majority) can vote to end a filibuster till the cows come home and it will never end.

 

[McDowell's]

A lack of punishment does not indicate legality.

And the contrapositive is also true, namely legality is not indicated by punishment. Legality is indicated specifically by a legal code applying to the individual legislator, which is not present here. The only thing that can be said here is that if a legislator decides not to attend, they can be compelled to attend, but not that they are breaking the law.

If the State of Wisconsin feels they are breaking the law, they can apply to the State of Illinois for extradition to Wisconsin. The offending Senators aren't exactly hiding.

So you can show me in the Senate Rules where it is a permissible procedure for Senators to deny a quorom by refusing to appear at a session of the Legislature? If not, they are breaking the law. The Senate approves their own rules and are bound to those rules as required by the constitution. If the Senators are not abiding by those rules, they have violated the constitution of their State and therefore the law.

 

[California Girl]

If I were a voter in WI, I would want to know where the hell these 14 are, and if they're still holed up somewhere like a bunch of fucking cowards, I'd want to know who is paying their bill, and then I'd be demanding they either report for the job they are being paid to do or resign. Either would be fine.

Fucking cowardly little critters. It'll be a riot if any of these 14 ever decide to run for POTUS.... the right will have a wonderful time reminding them of this little fiasco. LMAO.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

Agreed. Americans have the right to protest, and protest as a collective group if they wish.

But their employers also have a right to fire them for insubordination and replace them with employees (not "workers") who will do the job for what is being offered as compensation.

I have a feeling a lot of WI teachers are gonna be fired because the union will get it's way. The collective greed sacrificing the entire career of a few to prevent them from having to give up just a little bit more each as a group. Liberalism at it's best.

I find it revealing of the source when someone believes they can decide what is 'a little bit' in someone else's livelihood... how many times are you going to continue to perpetrate the lie...the union is willing to negotiate, the governor never offered to negotiate. His only offer is to dictate his terms.

BTW, why not the term workers?

The governor cannot "negotiate" because he has ZIP-ZERO-NADA to negotiate with....altho....i do imagine he would be willing to "negotiate" a larger cut.....

workers work the system.....workers of the world unite!.....

 

[BenNatuf]

It's not an inane idea. Constitutionally proper laws are ones that protect individual rights, and it is the responsibility of the government to enforce them.

Nor is there anything in my common that abrogates the individual for being responsible for protecting his own rights and self interest.

Is that so?

Bode, Constitutionally proper laws are those laws which are passed which are neccesary and proper for the government to enact to affectuate its granted authorities. By deffinition governmental authority is an infringement on personal liberty. Yes, there may be laws which the government designs to "protect" one persons rights, but they do so at the expense of the person who's rights are infringed on by it. It is YOU who is responsible for protecting your rights and you do so by petitioning the government to reccognize them.

 

[boedicca]

I stand by my comment. You are splitting semantic hairs, but if it gives you your jollies, knock yourself out.

And it's boe, not Bode.

 

[McDowell's]

BTW, with the classroom example, I do have plenty of things I can do to compel attendance. I can contact advisors, administration, parents, give pop quizzes, etc. I can even get their financial aid pulled if I can document they have excessive absence (wild right?).

That still doesn't make it necessarily against the rules for them to skip unless there is a specific rule in the syllabus to that effect.

A lot of folks in this thread are making the false assumption that the ability to compel attendance means that they are legally obliged to attend. The Legislature is meeting in Madison, it just lacks quorum.

Yes, but there are specific rules in the Senate Rules which state that a attending legislators have the right to compel absent legislators to attend. We're not talking pressure tactics. They have the right to force them to attend. By not answering the call of the Senate, those Senators are not abiding by the rules they agreed to under the constitution of their state. There is a procedure for ensuring quoroms, the majority has followed that procedure and now the minority is obligated to perform. Following y'alls filibuster example, this is as if the proper procedure to end a filibuster was implemented and successful yet the dissenting members refused to acknoledge that fact.

Your classroom situation proves my point. If you make a rule in your syllabus saying that you they don't have to attend unless you mandate it, and then you mandate their attendance for a certain class, THEY HAVE TO ATTEND or they broke the rules of your class.

 

[BenNatuf]

I stand by my comment. You are splitting semantic hairs, but if it gives you your jollies, knock yourself out.

And it's boe, not Bode.

And you've been so reasonable lately! I'm not splitting any hairs I am speaking factually, even when you pettition the government to reccognize your rights it is not inherrant on them to do so. Courts are charged with deciding "controversies" in the law and constitution, and they can either decide your rights are ascendant or the governments authority is. It is up to YOU to defend them in court, not the governments job to defend them for you.

 

[boedicca]

It's not inherent in all governments - I was speaking of a properly formed government under a Constitution based upon a philosophy of individual rights.

And go ahead with the semantic hair splitting. It's obviously easier for you to do than to deal with first principles.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It wasn't that long ago, remember when libs were outraged at Tea Party activists? Remember how the left was shocked, I say shocked that little old ladies and grey haired conservative men would actually engage in the political process? There were cries of anarchy and treason on the left. Now we have municipal workers breaking the law with sick-outs and trying to intimidate the poor Wisconsin governor and the left thinks it's another day in the park. Cowardly democrat state senators probably think they are entitled to a pay check while they sit in a bar in Illinois. What a bunch.

Would you care to show me where the workers are breaking any laws?

It is illegal for teachers to strike.

Calling in sick when you are not actually sick is fraud, and last time I checked that is illegal.

Taking students off of school property requires parental permission slips in most states. That is another way they are breaking the law.

Passing off documents you know are false, like the doctors slips some teachers are getting signed, is fraud, filing a false report, and perjury.

Shall I go on, or do you get the point?

 

[BenNatuf]

It's not inherent in all governments - I was speaking of a properly formed government under a Constitution based upon a philosophy of individual rights.

And go ahead with the semantic hair splitting. It's obviously easier for you to do than to deal with first principles.

I'm not arguing the government can't devise laws they think will protect rights, I'm merely stating the fact... they don't have to. Since they don't, it is not their "job".

 

[boedicca]

Then you clearly don't understand why the Constitution was designed to limit government power.

Have a good day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you clearly don't understand why the Constitution was designed to limit government power.

Have a good day.

It certainly wasn't designed to do what you people think it was designed to do.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

We stand in solidarity with the protesters and the brave 14 State Senators who are making a stand against Gov. Walker, his cronies, and the Koch brothers' blatant attack on workers' rights!
Please forward this petition to everyone you know who supports the 14 Democratic state senators who are fighting for workers rights!
thepetitionsite.com/158/support-the-wisconsin-14/

The Project for Social and Economic Equality supports their actions and will do everything in our power to get their message heard.
Daniel Lee,
Director, The Project for Social and Economic Equality

Good for you.

Unfortunately, I am afraid these 14 won't be able to hold out forever, and the forces of evil will win out on this one.

LMFAO!! "Forces of evil." It's evil to balance your checkbook stupid?

 

[boedicca]

You are obviously confused. It's you and your pea-green with envy do-nothings that seem to think the purpose of government is to mug other people for your benefit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just about every headline I have read about the proposed budget changes in Wisconsin mentions Collective Bargaining "rights". I am NOT the sharpest tack in the box, and after extensive Google searches, can find no LAW that stipulates such rights. What am I missing?

Wisconsin passed a law in 1959 giving the public sector employees bargaining rights.

(I'm looking for the text of it)

And they want to change the law? So what?

Are you daft? They want to change the law to take away collective bargaining rights that were established in 1959.

Thus, to go back to the OP that everyone has forgotten,

no, it is not inappropriate to refer to their collective bargaining rights, because, yes, they have them.

You brainiacs trying to make more out of this than it is are embarassing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are obviously confused. It's you and your pea-green with envy do-nothings that seem to think the purpose of government is to mug other people for your benefit.

I've paid school taxes for decades and never had a kid in school. Who's mugging who? I've paid more taxes than ANYONE in my bracket who has kids, because of the ability of the breeders to take massive tax deductions.

So fuck off.