The Constitutional right to a job.

[Moonbeam]

The Declaration of Independence declares that it is self evident that man has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot achieve happiness without some kind of financial assurance and for Americans today that means a job.

"The privileges and immunities designated are those which of right belong to citizens of all free governments. Clearly among these must be the right to pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner, without other restraint than such as equally affects all persons."

?Justice Stephen J. Field, dissenting in the Slaughterhouse Cases

The Slaughterhouse case was decided 5 to 4 and wrong.

"Free labor" was a core doctrine of the Republican Party in the 1850s and 1860s, and it was the Republicans who controlled the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the privileges or immunities clause. The opportunity for social advancement through labor was to Republican minds the factor that distinguished the United States (at least the North) from Europe: "What is it that makes the great mass of American citizens so much more enterprising and intelligent than the laboring classes in Europe? It is the stimulant held out to them by the character of our institutions. The door is thrown open to all, and even the poorest and humblest in the land, may, by industry and application, attain a position which will entitle him to the respect and confidence of his fellow-men."

Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 16. Foner attributes the quote to "an Iowa Republican" and cites The Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Iowa, vol. 1 (Davenport, Iowa: Luse, Lau, 1857), 193.

Today, cheep labor Republicans are destroying the fabric of our nation, the notion that we are all members of the same club with rights and obligations. We have become a nation of greed and self interest, of cheating to stay alive, from the personal vice black market employment to corporate greed. We need to provide work for all. It's time for a New Deal, for the people to take back the nation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

LOL. Exactly.

Good post, Moonie.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have become a nation of greed and self interest, of cheating to stay alive, from the personal vice black market employment to corporate greed. We need to provide work for all. It's time for a New Deal, for the people to take back the nation.

Wow, MB said this?

How do we gather enough strength to qaush the rampant cheating? We will see more unless something is done. Enron was just the tip of the Iceberg.

 

[ElFenix]

there is no right to a job.

Clearly among these must be the right to pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner

even he was saying that theres only a right to look for one.

oh, and the new deal only passed through the court system on the second try because of roosevelt's threat to pack the courts AFTER they'd been struck down in the first test.

 

[XZeroII]

Everyone has that right, but that doesn't mean that it should be handed to you on a silver platter. You still have to find a job, and do it well. It is saying that everyone has a right to have a job and work. Simply giving everyone a job is communism.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is no right to a job.

Clearly among these must be the right to pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner

even he was saying that theres only a right to look for one.

oh, and the new deal only passed through the court system on the second try because of roosevelt's threat to pack the courts AFTER they'd been struck down in the first test.

The right to pursue a job is the right to be employed in work, not to look for a job. The court was anti-democratic and counter to the 13 14 and 15 ammendment, here the 14th in particular.

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Everyone has that right, but that doesn't mean that it should be handed to you on a silver platter. You still have to find a job, and do it well. It is saying that everyone has a right to have a job and work. Simply giving everyone a job is communism.

Nobody said it should be handed to you on a silver platter, only that there must be work for those who want it. There must be a job to find. Doing it well is an issue that comes later in the game. The certainty that there will be work to do if you want it is your democratic right. If that's communism than tough. But nobody should make you work, just that you absolutly can if you want. There should be no unemployment checks and nobody who's given up hope, nobody who's exhausted their benefits, nobody who can't feed their kids.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Everyone has that right, but that doesn't mean that it should be handed to you on a silver platter. You still have to find a job, and do it well. It is saying that everyone has a right to have a job and work. Simply giving everyone a job is communism.

the point seems to be that, although there is a semlbance of "having the right to look for a job" the manner in which jobs are distributed appears to be so obviously unbalanced and those jobs that are secure are being held by a specific group of people. so that, all people can look for jobs, provided they never plan to try and move out of their tax bracket (assuming jobs can be found)
maybe thats just my take on what was said.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Everyone has that right, but that doesn't mean that it should be handed to you on a silver platter. You still have to find a job, and do it well. It is saying that everyone has a right to have a job and work. Simply giving everyone a job is communism.

No one is asking for a job handed to them on a silver platter. They just want to be treated fairly in their search for work, and know that there is indeed work to be found. If people want to work and earn a living they should be able to find work. How can they pursue life liberty and happiness if they can't afford to put a roof over their heads and food on the table?

The same people who decry welfare and social programs are the people who are creating the economic climate which puts people out of work, closes factories, sends jobs overseas. Their greed denies people who want no more than to be able to provide for themselves and their families the ability to do so.

The point is "the right to pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner, without other restraint than such as equally affects all persons."

A fair chance and the knowledge that if you want to work there is actually work available. That's all people really ask for. And that is their right.

 

[nickPOWERZ]

Who will be forced to employ these people? How do they decide there wages? Can they choose what work will they do? Most importantly, how do you not take away the freedoms of the employers? This is a free country, for both the employer and the employee.

And finally what is stopping them from doing work right now, as in being there own employer?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Nice Labor Day post, Moonie.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: nickPOWERZ
Who will be forced to employ these people? How do they decide there wages? Can they choose what work will they do? Most importantly, how do you not take away the freedoms of the employers? This is a free country, for both the employer and the employee.

And finally what is stopping them from doing work right now, as in being there own employer?

9 million unemployed people starting their own business. I hope they have plenty of capital.

A little more of Bush's economic policies and we'll all be self employed. On the corner selling apples.

 

[LunarRay]

The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment

Since the Slaughterhouse case was mentioned and it is to do with the 14th I thought it should be shown just how it was 'ramrodded' into existence.

All though the people do benefit from the 14th, it seems to me that the States could do a better job of it because the power is closer to the people.
When the Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson he used in large measure the Virginia Bill of Rights. The terms that relate to inalienable rights have as their basis Virginia's BofR.
It is the primary objective of The Central Government to secure for the population the concept of the Preamble of the US Constitution. That is the job of the folks who run the show in DC. It logically follows that if a 'right' is dependent on an underlying condition it is the underlying condition that must be made attainable. IMO

 

[sandorski]

Not too sure about a "Constitutional Right to a Job", seems rather vague and open to interpretation, though the proceeding clarifications make sense.

I totally agree though, Corporate America is farged up. There is too much concern for Shareholders and not enough concern for Workers or even Nation. Corporations have ceased being good citizens(as if they could be) and view the World as 1 place, so to them they are not abandoning anything, they are merely moving to a different location. It seems to me, despite claims to the contrary, Globalization is the realization of Capitalists and not Communists(though, if they had won the Cold War, they too would have Globalized).

The Economic rivalry of the Cold War is still being realized as to it's true nature. It seems that both sides were speaking Truth when they claimed that the other was hellbent on this or that, that each truly was attempting to encircle the Globe. In short, the Cold War was about total control, Global establishment of a singular Economic system, that both systems needed a Global Scope in order to survive. As we know, the Capitalists won and now Corporations go wherever, whenever, and however they want.

What will result from this, I dunno, I suspect though that similar to the Soviet Union's centralized economic system, a Global Capitalist system will result in a Global Equity of Wealth. It would take a long time for this to happen, but the procedure is not as interesting as the results. If you took all the Wealth in the world today, then divide it by the total Earth population, it would give an approximate state in some distant future. Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Japanese, and other First World nations would have a noticeable drop in Wealth, probably leveling off in the Working Class(with exceptions) or Lower Middle Class. The Third World though would benefit significantly, at least they wouldn't starve whenever drought causes their crops to fail, but they would never(with a few exceptions) acheive a lifestyle anything near what most of us enjoy. Most of us will likely never see this though, just a few steps towards it.

I think such a thing is better in the Longterm, we in the First World have too much Wealth, those in the Third World have practically none. We don't know what to do with the Wealth we have, we buy ridiculously extravagent things(SUVs, Food portions, etc), our Lifestyle spews crap into the Air/Ground/Water despite knowing the dangers, our quest in Life seems to have become "shock value"(Reality TV, Radio/TV Talkshows), Lesbian kisses(titilation) , we are corrupt gluttons.

Is this a conspiracy? Probably not. Capitalists are too short-sighted to see their Greeds' outcome, though they themselves will likely be the exception to the shift in Wealth re-distribution. In the end though, Communist/Capitalist doesn't matter, it is merely the Process which separates them, not the outcome.

Then again, I could be wrong!

 

[LunarRay]

I believe the objective of the Globalist is to exponentially increase the power of the Corporate entity on a worldwide basis. They believe they can eliminate poverty, war, brutality and other things. Political solutions have not achieved this and they are noble in their ideals. The ones who suffer, however, are the folks of the countries you, sandorski, mentioned.
I don't want to see us suffer. Do I not care for the folks who are starving is the question they ask. To which I respond. With the US strong and its people strong we can help them help themselves. Give them a fish and they eat for a day... teach them to fish and they live for a life time.. Teach them to develope their own economy, establish their own markets and live according to their own efforts. But, we should work to eliminate human rights violations and this is best done by helping them understand their own freedom.

 

[JellyBaby]

No, there is no constitutional right to a job. You have the right to freely seek employment. No one else has any right to prevent you from going after that job.

Government shouldn't be colluding with private enterprise to create jobs abroad, at the expense of those at home or to otherwise disenfranchise Americans vis-a-vis finding work. Clearly, Bush Inc. gets failing grades here.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
No, there is no constitutional right to a job. You have the right to freely seek employment. No one else has any right to prevent you from going after that job.

Government shouldn't be colluding with private enterprise to create jobs abroad, at the expense of those at home or to otherwise disenfranchise Americans vis-a-vis finding work. Clearly, Bush Inc. gets failing grades here.

Jelly,
The right to a job, education and health care is inferred from the statements contained in our Sacred Documents. The actions you speak of, the 'colluding' are wrong because those actions undermine the sworn objective of the government folks in power to secure these rights for US.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
No, there is no constitutional right to a job. You have the right to freely seek employment. No one else has any right to prevent you from going after that job.

Government shouldn't be colluding with private enterprise to create jobs abroad, at the expense of those at home or to otherwise disenfranchise Americans vis-a-vis finding work. Clearly, Bush Inc. gets failing grades here.

There is no constitutional right to a full cupboard. You hve the right to freely seek something to eat in your empty cupboard though. No one else has any right to prevent you from eating air.

 

[LunarRay]

MB,
So are you saying it is illegal to pollute our air in that we may consume it at some point in some manner?
And the folks in DC ought regulate this pollution so the poor and others among us may enjoy the notion of 'Life'.

 

[IGBT]

...fast forward to the future...NAFTA. Our jobs are being exported as fast as possible with the approval of our political royalty and the captians of American industry................:disgust:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: IGBT
...fast forward to the future...NAFTA. Our jobs are being exported as fast as possible with the approval of our political royalty and the captians of American industry................:disgust:

No need to look forward... all this has been going on for quite some time..
Economic Isolationism in baby steps is the key... IMO

 

[sandorski]

NAFTA(consisting of: Canada, USA, Mexico) is being used as a scapegoat here. Most of these jobs are goin elsewhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
MB,
So are you saying it is illegal to pollute our air in that we may consume it at some point in some manner?
And the folks in DC ought regulate this pollution so the poor and others among us may enjoy the notion of 'Life'.

No, take out the polution and there'll be nothing to eat at all.

 

[XZeroII]

I believe that the framers of the constitution meant that anyone who complains about cows should be horse-whipped.

 

[Moonbeam]

Someone was complaining about cows?