The Constitutional right to a job.

[LunarRay]

Probably not cows... cowboys... which are bulls and they have to eat... and then poop... bull poop.. if anyone complains about all this bull poop they should be horsewhipped..

 

[JellyBaby]

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.

Those aren't rights. A right must not require the permission of another, must not depend on the responsbility of another, can't be a claim on the life of another. We have the right to pursue happiness, we don't have a right to put a lien on our neighbors to ensure we have it.

The collusion is wrong because government was never given authority to meld with private enterprise as it has. But as you say if government comes between you and your liberty to pursue a job, education or health care, then it has failed in it's primary role as protector of your rights.

If someone wants to advocate socialism, he's free to do so. He has that right. And I will listen because some socialist ideas appeal to me. If he wants government to guarantee employment for every last citizen, he can promote that goal. But to pretend people have rights to jobs? What's next, the "right" to a house, a car, food, insurance, a computer, etc.? Let's at least be honest and accurate.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 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.

no, the right is to look for it. you can't, by the same amendments, abridge the right of the employer to decide if he needs to hire someone.

 

[LunarRay]

Jelly,
Socialism invades the entire economic and social life of the citizen no matter his ambition and or talents. For that reason I don't support it. The lower strata of our citizenry need those aspects of economic considerations supported by taxation in order to exist. I support this because it is proper to do so. IMO
Capitalism breeds divisional contempt and seeks to inculcate greed as the motivator instead of self actualization. Notwithstanding this, I support it but, seek to mitigate the greed and encourage achievement. Socialism provides full educational opportunities (often) without cost and this is good. Capitalism also provides educational opportunities and if one is brainy she may get a scholarship to Yale. Or educated herself at the local city college and then onward. Socialism provides health care for all (often) and this is good. Capitalism could, if everyone who worked was covered (less fortunate or retired must have medical or Medicare options) This takes legislation regarding MED/MAL and the drug folks and some other issues.

edit... I didn't hit the key... but swoosh..

The right to a job is inherent in notion of being an American. It may not be the job you seek but, it ought to be a job that provides some of the being employed rewards until one's own talent and efforts provide the opportunity for achieving that objective. If you study to be a Lawyer and are the best lawyer you will be employed as a lawyer and if you are a so so lawyer perhaps you shouldn't have gone in that direction. Same for any field or endevor. But, to say a family of four can exist on two members working at Mcdonalds is inaccurate. If they are not talented enough to work above that station ok but, if they are they should be allowed to have employment consistent with the demands of the economy and that is the Governments job to insure. IMO

 

[JellyBaby]

The right to a job is inherent in notion of being an American.

I don't think this makes sense because a right is a right is a right. By that I mean I, as an American, have rights exactly the same as my counterpart elsewhere. It doesn't matter who you are or where you were born, you have the same rights, really. You were born with them and they're identical in all places, in all times. I may be missing your point but circumstance (e.g. being a citizen of a nation), has zero to do with it.

Also if "Socialism invades the entire economic and social life of the citizen no matter his ambition and or talents" and for that reason you don't support it, then how can you support a "right" to a job which surely invades the economic and social lives of those required to guarantee such positions? Or do you have in mind government positions...in which case the invasion is indirect but existant nonetheless...?

I really wonder, if one wants to create a right to a job, if one must amend the constitution to lay it forth as law....to put it to the ultimate test. Some of our amendments past the Bill 'o Rights haven't exactly been stellar or profound in their accomplishment. Could this be the first good one in a while? But at the very least if you're right and I'm wrong, I think that's best.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

I really wonder, if one wants to create a right to a job, if one must amend the constitution to lay it forth as law....to put it to the ultimate test. Some of our amendments past the Bill 'o Rights haven't exactly been stellar or profound in their accomplishment. Could this be the first good one in a while? But at the very least if you're right and I'm wrong, I think that's best.

yes, it would have to be an amendment because theres nothing in the constitution that says the gov't has to provide jobs for everyone that wants one, and everything the gov't does has to be granted authority by its constitution.

 

[LunarRay]

Lets see if I can communicate clearer. I always know what I mean but, sometimes words are hard to find.

A 'Right' to a job:
To me means: A function of government (ours) is to insure that the basic rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are attainable. If (and I think it is) the ability to enjoy, for instance, life, maintain life, and recreate life is dependent on one thing it must be the ability to barter for the 'needs' to attain them by having something to barter with. To gain this commodity one may own a farm or a ranch and 'work' those or he may provide his time to another in exchange for some commodity. The bartering is necessarily a right to achieve a right, Life. They are intertwined and dependent on each other. The bartering is not attainable without the commodity so the ability to attain the commodity must also be a right other wise the bartering is not and if it is not then the basic right to Life is not. The same for Liberty and Happiness. So for me a right flows backward to all its constituent parts and they by virtue of their part, maintain and inherit the character of their objective.

 

[Dari]

This is the absolute worst of human nature: lazyness and apathy. And it sounds too socialist to me. It has no place in a global system.

Besides, there are a lot of jobs, but many don't want them. McDonald's always hiring and so is burger king. Want a job? Go over there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

I really wonder, if one wants to create a right to a job, if one must amend the constitution to lay it forth as law....to put it to the ultimate test. Some of our amendments past the Bill 'o Rights haven't exactly been stellar or profound in their accomplishment. Could this be the first good one in a while? But at the very least if you're right and I'm wrong, I think that's best.

yes, it would have to be an amendment because theres nothing in the constitution that says the gov't has to provide jobs for everyone that wants one, and everything the gov't does has to be granted authority by its constitution.

Here are some words on that subject in a review of A New Birth of Freedom: Human Rights, Named & Unnamed. By Charles L. Black, Jr. New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1997. Pp. 175. $22.95, cloth.

"Contemporary American law finds the source of human rights in a variety of constitutional doctrines, ranging from substantive due process to the equal protection clause. Charles L. Black, Jr. enters this discourse in an attempt to renew and rework the legitimacy of human rights law in the United States. Black finds the source of a strong American human rights system in three ?imperishable commitments?: the Declaration of Independence, the Ninth Amendment, and the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In A New Birth of Freedom, he works to set up a three-part harmony, going beyond political and economic unity toward defining a moral unity for America.

Black begins his discussion with the ?principal lacks? of American human rights law to show why the concept of human rights law in the US requires resuscitation. The enumerated rights are insufficient; the guarantees of post?Civil War amendments have become merely formal rights rather than substantive rights; and current doctrines, such as substantive due process, lack the strength and validity to guarantee a strong basis for human rights.

Black?s point of departure is that the Declaration of Independence should have the force of law. By demolishing one legal authority and establishing another, it was an act of constitution. The signers of the Declaration could have faced treason charges in their creation of a document that established legitimacy for a new nation. To Black, the Declaration represents general commitments that can give force to particular law.

The Ninth Amendment, which states that ?The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,? represents more than moral philosophy for Black. He takes the reader through the different possible interpretations of this amendment and rests on stating that the Ninth Amendment encapsulates an idea of an evolving set of rights. These other rights must be on an equal footing with the enumerated ones. Black connects this reference to ?retained? rights to the Declaration of Independence, which ?retained? certain rights, like the pursuit of happiness, merely 13 years prior to the passage of the Ninth Amendment.

In his discussion of the role of the Fourteenth Amendment in renewing the legitimacy of human rights law in America, Black asserts that the courts should define privileges and immunities according to the rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Black spends a chapter on a structural and moral analysis of The Slaughterhouse Cases, which he feels nullified the intent of the amendment, and the incorporation of the rebel states after the Civil War. If privileges and immunities are not strong against the states, then basically the nation cannot secure national human rights, which was the purpose of the Civil War. Black interprets the clause as defining state citizenship according to national law; thus, states cannot abridge or define citizenship without encountering national human rights law.

Two major themes run throughout Black?s analysis of the three ?imperishable commitments.? Black calls for an acknowledgement of the basic impact of the Civil War: state sovereignty is obsolete. Also, he attacks the use of legislative history as a method of statutory interpretation. In his discussion of time and the Constitution, Black attempts to demonstrate that language has not changed in any substantive way since the Constitution was signed. In his approach, Black first looks at the plain meaning of the authority itself, before consulting cases and other sources.

In Black?s attempt to bring Americans back to Revolutionary conceptions of freedom, he paints an overly rosy picture of American ideals. In this regard, Black?s restructuring of the legitimacy of human rights law in the United States loses some momentum during his description of the impact of the passage of time. His noble conception of the United States as a country that bases its existence as a superpower on its desire for greater global human rights elicits skepticism. This divergence, however, is not typical of the work, and does not detract from his primary analysis.

Black does not aim to give us specific steps to inspire this return to the basic values of the Declaration of Independence. His only specific policy-related discussion deals with affirmative duties to flesh out the right to pursuit of happiness with calls for the reinstatement of the Great Society nutrition programs. This, however, would be politically unfeasible in the present environment. Black lays the foundation for an intellectually sufficient and reasonable support for human rights law. Instead of focusing on limited doctrines, such as substantive due process, Black advocates moving away from them, and concentrating on the real questions: ?(1) Is this a heart-crushing blow to the pursuit of happiness? And (2) Are the proffered justifications good enough to justify so heavy a blow?? Black does not hedge. Instead, he encourages all lawyers to think unhesitatingly about the scandal of resigning the Declaration of Independence and Ninth Amendment to oblivion.

In A New Birth of Freedom, Black aims to provide a substantive value system and a better system of reason from which to approach human rights and the general business of this nation. He invokes the spirit of President Abraham Lincoln?s Gettysburg address where Lincoln sought for America ?a new birth of freedom.? Black urges us to return to our founding principles. In fact, the life of the Constitution, and of the nation, requires that we institute the legal obligation of the Declaration for human rights.

?Jaskaran K. Grewal

Copyright © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College
Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 14, Spring 2001

 

[ElFenix]

what does that have to do with the gov't finding jobs for everyone?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what does that have to do with the gov't finding jobs for everyone?

The Government are the steward's of the economy. The economy provides the jobs. The jobs provide the rights that the nation was founded under and with.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what does that have to do with the gov't finding jobs for everyone?

The Government are the steward's of the economy. The economy provides the jobs. The jobs provide the rights that the nation was founded under and with.

i'd argue that the jobs don't provide the rights, they're more enabling devices, but i was asking moonbeam, since the book synopses doesn't seem to have anything to say about the thrust of the thread (and frankly i think the guy is rewriting history to serve his pupose, but thats neither here nor there)

 

[LunarRay]

Elfenix,
Ok, enabling devices works for me. Jobs enable folks to attain the Rights. Rights not attainable or attainable by some but not all don't seem to be Rights that All men are created equal enough to attain.

Sorry if I barged into your and moonbeam's tet a tet.. I was referring to your statement about Govt and Jobs..

 

[SuperTool]

I think the federal government needs to go on infrastructure building spree like it did in the 30's. We need to build high speed rail from LA to SF, for example.
that will create jobs and pay off in less reliance on foreign oil and traffic congestion.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think the federal government needs to go on infrastructure building spree like it did in the 30's. We need to build high speed rail from LA to SF, for example.
that will create jobs and pay off in less reliance on foreign oil and traffic congestion.

A great use of long term debt as well. This is what business uses LT debt to finance. Plus it has the added feature of paying for itself as well as the jobs..

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree to a point. Let's take this scenario for instance, I know a guy who worked at a factory for 20+ years. The corporation that owned that factory decided that it was too expensive to keep going, the technology was outdated, the cost of transporting goods to a from the area was getting more costly. At the time he along with most of the people were making in the $17-$19 range...no union just good hard working people. Upon hearing that this place "might" go beacuse it was a choice between his factory and another, he got all the workers together and asked that they ALL take a cut in pay. Somwhere in the area of $4-$5 I think.

Well out of the 150 people working there on 29 people were with him, the way they looked at it taking a small cut in pay was better than no job at all. The rest did not go along, they had been making too good money to stop. They had gotten themselves soo far in debt that any paycut would be out of the question. Guess what, they are in a real bind now because that plant closed down. They could have taken the paycut and made it up somwhere else but they did not. They were lazy and the company could not afford to keep them.

I believe that anyone who wants to work should have the opportunity, but you cannot force companies to hire people if you do they hire to many, make no money and then close and EVERYONE gets the shaft.

If you go to college to get a degree, and when you get out the only job you can get is working at Burger King, then work there because either way that degree means nothing. It means nothing if you are unemployed, it means nothing if you are flipping burgers. But you can still look for a job while you are making that whopper no law says you can't.

And yes MB believe it or not what you are suggesting is communism. Do you know anyone who is unemployed? If you do, why not start your own company and be thier salvation?

Not to mention the fact is is very difficult to fire the worthless people now anyway, this I think would make it even worse.

I work near a GM plant. I know people who have relatives there....you want to know why a car is so damned expensive? part of the reason is that workers there are EXTREMELY lazy, not all, most from what I hear. If a machine goes down the employee who runs that machine sits off to the side or better yet some have cots and they go to sleep until it is fixed. I know one guy whose father worked there he bragged how his dad had a small food cart, you know like a hot dog cart that he would push around...on the job. Some of them hit the clock and leave go to the bar down the road and stay there all day then go back to the plant punch out and go home. You think these people have a right to a job? They are damned lucky they got one, but that has to do with the union and that is a completely different subject.

My point here is that people are bad enough, they think that the company "owes" them something and tend to forget that they were the ones who walked in the door and asked for a job, the company did not have to give them one but it did and then after a while workers have a tendancy start to piss it away. Take a look around you next time you go somewhere, the store, the movies and watch the behavior of the workers, for the most part they are damed lazy they are there to collect a paycheck and go home, there is not much pride anymore. It's sad really.

They get paid the same and do less, so then companies have to hire others to fill in the gap and then all thier money goes to paying workers, then profits are down and people start to pull out then the company stocks are worthless and it folds. Does it follow this pattern always? no. But you can see how it could happen, and in the process some of these workers get laid off or let go and so then they look for work else where and according to you companies should be forced to hire them and guess what they start the same cycle all over again.

The fact is yes people want to work, the problem is that some want to work to do a good job and some want to work just to collect a paycheck, there is a difference and the latter are the ones who do not...I repeat do not deserve such consideration.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what does that have to do with the gov't finding jobs for everyone?

The Government are the steward's of the economy. The economy provides the jobs. The jobs provide the rights that the nation was founded under and with.

i'd argue that the jobs don't provide the rights, they're more enabling devices, but i was asking moonbeam, since the book synopses doesn't seem to have anything to say about the thrust of the thread (and frankly i think the guy is rewriting history to serve his pupose, but thats neither here nor there)

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, (shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people),? represents more than moral philosophy for Black. He takes the reader through the different possible interpretations of this amendment and rests on stating that (the Ninth Amendment encapsulates an idea of an evolving set of rights.) These other rights must be on an equal footing with the enumerated ones. Black connects this reference to ?retained? rights to the Declaration of Independence, which( ?retained? certain rights, like the pursuit of happiness), merely 13 years prior to the passage of the Ninth Amendment."

The way people today pursue happiness is through a job.

How can you accept a situation in which people can't get work? They have a right to a life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interestingly, Wheezer, almost everything you said was about people who do have jobs. I'm talking about those who don't. And we all know how capitalism works. You get rewarded for good behavior. Clearly the management of the companies you describe didn't reward their employees and reinforce positive behavior, right?

 

[LunarRay]

Wheezer,
I believe the Government is obliged to maintain the economy in such a condition that it provides jobs for the citizens who wish to work. Not a specific job for each desire. A job that will provide a livable wage to the holder. If there is a demand for 100 elephant feeders and 1000 applicants the government is not obliged to find elephant feeding jobs for the 900 who missed out regardless of their elephant feeding degrees. (I'm not being flippant with elephant.. I don't want to offend one craft or another) They are, however obliged to insure there is work available... Unemployment insurance is the link between one job lost and another found and recognition of their (the government's) responsibility.
An employer's right to fire, close down or hire is his business (within legal reason). Competitive issues closed the shipping plant down. There should be other jobs available at living wage to be had.
(full employment in my opinion is <4% unemployed and no 'off the rolls' unemployed. If one is lazy he can work at Burger King at 10$ an hour and live. If he is industrious he can educate himself and run Burger king at 60$ an hour. Each has a choice to make and effort to expend. The government only needs to insure there is available work for all and the best get the best and so on. No job can be called a job if it don't enable the job holder to secure for himself and family the basic rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness

 

[nickPOWERZ]

When you extend a persons right to "the pursuit of happiness" to things that are needed to enable it, as in a job, I think "pursuit" should follow. I think that the pursuit of a job is a freedom which no one should have taken away from him. But that is all he is guarenteed, a chance, an opprotunity to succceed, freedom.

However, I do not believe that a job is needed for happiness. I think that happiness is separate from wealth, that the poorest man on earth could be happy knowing that he is loved and loving back, knowing that his heart is content.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nickPOWERZ
When you extend a persons right to "the pursuit of happiness" to things that are needed to enable it, as in a job, I think "pursuit" should follow. I think that the pursuit of a job is a freedom which no one should have taken away from him. But that is all he is guarenteed, a chance, an opprotunity to succceed, freedom.

However, I do not believe that a job is needed for happiness. I think that happiness is separate from wealth, that the poorest man on earth could be happy knowing that he is loved and loving back, knowing that his heart is content.

Right, and what's he going to eat? A pursuit is useless if there's nothing to pursue.

 

[nickPOWERZ]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Right, and what's he going to eat? A pursuit is useless if there's nothing to pursue.

I would suggest that when a person is faced with starvation he is generally given the motivation to make things work. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[nickPOWERZ]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Right, and what's he going to eat? A pursuit is useless if there's nothing to pursue.

I would suggest that when a person is faced with starvation he is generally given the motivation to make things work. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[Wheezer]

You miss the point...what I am saying is this...The govermant should not gurantee anyone a job simple. You are give many guarntees in this country what you make of it is your choice period. The fact that you are a garbage man, and that is all you do and you NEVER learn another trade, craft, or get an education and then when your company closes down or simply fires you and you know nothing else well that is your own fault.

What you are sugestiing gives no one any incentive to do thier job well. Why should they? The goverment will give them a check for getting fired, food stamps if they need it and then guranntee them a job. Am I saying all people are lazy? certainly not but what I am saying is that you are trying gurantee eveyone who is lazy a free ride. I know that may not be where you are trying to take this but that is where it would end up.

 

[ElFenix]

the declaration of independence is not binding law no matter what black may argue, just as the articles of confederation are not binding law. it may provide a framework of ideas, but it does not enable the gov't to pursue those ideas. the constitution does. and no where does the constitution state that the gov't has the right to ensure that theres enough jobs for everyone. tell me where in article 1 section 8 of the constitution there is enabling authority granted to do so, if you think it exists.