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

[danielpalos]

"This" is your feeble attempt to invalidate means testing in government programs, and when pressed, you have to admit even your fantasy has means testing. You cannot, for example, collect if you are a child or over retirement age.

Does an employer have to hire someone in a Right to Work State?

If Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism can be required to be "wage-slaves" under our current regime,
then Capitalists can be required to be "hire-slaves" for equality under the same regime.

 

[struth]

You misunderstand the argument; are you on the right-wing?

At-will is more analogous to no-fault insurance.

haha well no, one deals with employment, one deals with insurance…generally with automobiles

and frankly no, no fault states are bad for the insured as it limits the amounts you can recover via litigation

So in your case, in terms of unemployment it would be bad for the employee in the long run

 

[danielpalos]

haha well no, one deals with employment, one deals with insurance…generally with automobiles

and frankly no, no fault states are bad for the insured as it limits the amounts you can recover via litigation

So in your case, in terms of unemployment it would be bad for the employee in the long run

In a "no-fault insurance" State. Is a more correct analogy.

 

[danielpalos]

Does anyone believe we would be worse off by solving simple poverty in our "first-world" economy?

 

[struth]

Does an employer have to hire someone in a Right to Work State?

If Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism can be required to be "wage-slaves" under our current regime,
then Capitalists can be required to be "hire-slaves" for equality under the same regime.

no they don’t have to hire anyone

and nobody has to work for them

hence they aren’t slaves

in contrast…some left wing states require membership in a union before a person can get a job. The union bosses take part of the workers hard earn pay…even if they don’t want to be a member. In the past the union bosses then would use those funds to donate to leftwingers who passed stronger laws protecting the union bosses right to take pay and force membership

thankfully some of that’s been litigated and found to be extra-constitutional and in violation of the law

 

[danielpalos]

no they don’t have to hire anyone

and nobody has to work for them

hence they aren’t slaves

in contrast…some left wing states require membership in a union before a person can get a job. The union bosses take part of the workers hard earn pay…even if they don’t want to be a member. In the past the union bosses then would use those funds to donate to leftwingers who passed stronger laws protecting the union bosses right to take pay and force membership

thankfully some of that’s been litigated and found to be extra-constitutional and in violation of the law

Hence, whence any rationale for this: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

Employers don't need "good cause" to not hire.

 

[struth]

In a "no-fault insurance" State. Is a more correct

I understood it the first time you said it and replied as to why you were wrong and flawed again

you are free to start writing your local state rep about amending your state UE insurance… but as it currently is it isn’t unconstitutional

 

[danielpalos]

I understood it the first time you said it and replied as to why you were wrong and flawed again

you are free to start writing your local state rep about amending your state UE insurance… but as it currently is it isn’t unconstitutional

Thanks. However, I demur due to your appeals to ignorance like a typical right-winger.

 

[struth]

Thanks. However, I demur due to your appeals to ignorance like a typical right-winger.

well good luck in your case! you will have to let us know if the court buys your argument

 

[WinterBorn]

What is this?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

If you were actually serious, you wouldn't be in state court over a federal matter.

 

[danielpalos]

well good luck in your case! you will have to let us know if the court buys your argument

Thanks. I will try to resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

If you were actually serious, you wouldn't be in state court over a federal matter.

This is the State matter involved: (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

 

[WinterBorn]

This is the State matter involved: (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

And where did that quote come from? The State Constitution or the US Constitution?

It is a federal matter if you are talking about laws being in violation of the US Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

And where did that quote come from? The State Constitution or the US Constitution?

It is a federal matter if you are talking about laws being in violation of the US Constitution.

This issue is currently before a State Superior Court.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes. Only "illegals" do that.

 

[WinterBorn]

This issue is currently before a State Superior Court.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes. Only "illegals" do that.

Once again you are trying to bring illegals and the border crisis into a conversation that has nothing to do with them.

If the state is violating the US Constitution it is a federal matter. Maybe you should have consulted a lawyer.

 

[danielpalos]

Once again you are trying to bring illegals and the border crisis into a conversation that has nothing to do with them.

If the state is violating the US Constitution it is a federal matter. Maybe you should have consulted a lawyer.

You miss the point about State Constitutional law being ignored. State Constitutional law is supreme in any conflict of laws enacted by our State legislators.

That means this: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

 

[WinterBorn]

You miss the point about State Constitutional law being ignored. State Constitutional law is supreme in any conflict of laws enacted by our State legislators.

That means this: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

No, it is absolutely not. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any state law that conflicts with the US Constitution is invalid.

 

[hadit]

Does an employer have to hire someone in a Right to Work State?

If Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism can be required to be "wage-slaves" under our current regime,
then Capitalists can be required to be "hire-slaves" for equality under the same regime.

No, they don't have to hire anyone, and no one has to work. The piece you are missing is that society doesn't have to support someone who won't work.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they don't have to hire anyone, and no one has to work. The piece you are missing is that society doesn't have to support someone who won't work.

The point Y'all are missing is that the Law matters external to border threads as well and US society does owe us equal protection of the laws.

 

[hadit]

The point Y'all are missing is that the Law matters external to border threads as well and US society does owe us equal protection of the laws.

1. This isn't a border thread so you're getting nowhere by yammering about that.
2. We do get equal protection of the laws because means testing is constitutional. It's obvious that you don't even have a real problem with means testing because you would do it yourself. The ONLY place you have a problem with it is where it impacts you.