Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[danielpalos]

The United States.

But i could be from anywhere and it still doesn’t change the fact you haven’t supported anything with an actual argument

lol. Not at all. Only foreigners and the ignorant, clueless and Causeless rebels without a Cause on the right-wing don't understand how to be Legal to the Law, only hypocrites in border threads.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I read a book last millennium, that was historical fiction about the Aztecs just before the arrival of the Europeans. Supposedly, the first three rows of corn closest to the street planted by farmers was for the poor.

So the farmers owe you your constitutional right to food. That sounds more like theft than a right.

 

[WinterBorn]

lol. I have stated more facts. Just because You can type on the internet doesn't mean you are Right, just because you are on the right-wing.

I am right when I say putting power transmission lines underground through hundreds of miles of wetland and wilderness is a bad idea.

 

[danielpalos]

So the farmers owe you your constitutional right to food. That sounds more like theft than a right.

The difference between Capitalism and truer Socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

I am right when I say putting power transmission lines underground through hundreds of miles of wetland and wilderness is a bad idea.

lol. That is your opinion not Any form of fact.

 

[WinterBorn]

lol. That is your opinion not Any form of fact.

No, that is fact. You might use your impressive Google skills to check on the hazards of transmission lines carrying 800kV.

And my claims that tunnels are vastly more expensive than boring is obvious to anyone with common sense.

 

[struth]

lol. Not at all. Only foreigners and the ignorant, clueless and Causeless rebels without a Cause on the right-wing don't understand how to be Legal to the Law, only hypocrites in border threads.

i don’t think you understand the law…actually i know you don’t.

you have yet to explain how UE insurance is unconstitutional

 

[danielpalos]

No, that is fact. You might use your impressive Google skills to check on the hazards of transmission lines carrying 800kV.

And my claims that tunnels are vastly more expensive than boring is obvious to anyone with common sense.

I don't need to. I live in California. Everybody knows fires are an issue with overhead high voltage lines.

 

[danielpalos]

i don’t think you understand the law…actually i know you don’t.

you have yet to explain how UE insurance is unconstitutional

Color me shocked. I think You understand the law even less and must be a right-winger.

 

[struth]

Color me shocked. I think You understand the law even less and must be a right-winger.

so you aren’t going to explain how UE insurance is unconstitutional?

 

[danielpalos]

so you aren’t going to explain how UE insurance is unconstitutional?

I have explained it several times. You seem to have comprehension issues. Are you on the right-wing?

 

[struth]

I have explained it several times. You seem to have comprehension issues. Are you on the right-wing?

no you have not once explained it

you have quoted two clauses from the US Constitution and a general description. of “at will” employment

but you’ve not explained your thought process or made an argument for how that makes UE insurance illegal.

 

[danielpalos]

no you have not once explained it

you have quoted two clauses from the US Constitution and a general description. of “at will” employment

but you’ve not explained your thought process or made an argument for how that makes UE insurance illegal.

Ok. How about trying it this way. What part of the equal protection clause do you not understand?

 

[struth]

Ok. How about trying it this way. What part of the equal protection clause do you not understand?

i understand it perfectly

and highlighted to you how it applies…if someone applies for UE and meets the requirements but is denied somehow then they have a case

The equal protection clause doesn’t say that a law can’t be passed that doesn’t have requirements to be eligible for benefits

All welfare laws have requirements before you are entitled to the benefits not just UE insurance. SS, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, disability…by your logic they are all unconstitutional since not everyone gets them and they have requirements

 

[danielpalos]

i understand it perfectly

and highlighted to you how it applies…if someone applies for UE and meets the requirements but is denied somehow then they have a case

The equal protection clause doesn’t say that a law can’t be passed that doesn’t have requirements to be eligible for benefits

All welfare laws have requirements before you are entitled to the benefits not just UE insurance. SS, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, disability…by your logic they are all unconstitutional since not everyone gets them and they have requirements

Let's keep it simple.

This is the law in question: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

There are no other restrictions.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[struth]

Let's keep it simple.

This is the law in question: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

There are no other restrictions.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

ok. i thought you were talking about UE insurance…

So how is it unconstitutional to have a law that says an employer can fire an employee at will absent a contract?

are you saying employer and bound to their employees under the Constitution now??? that’s complete bs

 

[WinterBorn]

ok. i thought you were talking about UE insurance…

So how is it unconstitutional to have a law that says an employer can fire an employee at will absent a contract?

are you saying employer and bound to their employees under the Constitution now??? that’s complete bs

Dannyboy think that is if the at-will laws describe the employer/employee relationship, they also describe every employment benefit program. If you cannot be held legally liable for quitting or getting fired, you must be able to draw unemployment compensation. And you must be able to draw it whether you had a job or not. Just free money for everyone who doesn't have a job.

 

[struth]

Dannyboy think that is if the at-will laws describe the employer/employee relationship, they also describe every employment benefit program. If you cannot be held legally liable for quitting or getting fired, you must be able to draw unemployment compensation. And you must be able to draw it whether you had a job or not. Just free money for everyone who doesn't have a job.

then sounds like the law he actually has issue with is the UE insurance law. So the clown doesn’t even know which law he has an actual issue with

I wonder if he knows that union shop states also don’t get UE benefits to people who’ve been fired for cause, and also has caps on how long you can get the benefit

 

[WinterBorn]

then sounds like the law he actually has issue with is the UE insurance law. So the clown doesn’t even know which law he has an actual issue with

I wonder if he knows that union shop states also don’t get UE benefits to people who’ve been fired for cause, and also has caps on how long you can get the benefit

There are caps on all unemployment compensation benefits. But he wants those caps removed so people can draw it for as long as they have no job.

 

[danielpalos]

ok. i thought you were talking about UE insurance…

So how is it unconstitutional to have a law that says an employer can fire an employee at will absent a contract?

are you saying employer and bound to their employees under the Constitution now??? that’s complete bs

I am. I was giving you the background and informing you of the equal protection clause.

I never claimed that. You simply made up your story and assumed your own conclusion. That is a fallacy (an error in reasoning).

I am saying the unemployment insurance office (an agency of the State) has no authority to insist on good Cause to qualify for unemployment compensation for any benefits administered in our at-will employment State.