Obama to announce sick time is a "right"

[YALE]

No, it'd be an issue if it was the citizens suing the state, wage disputes are not that. Especially when they concern businesses as the businesses are not the state unless you're dealing with the federal government, that is a 10th amendment issue. Now, if I have an issue with the State of Texas and them owing me money? Then yes. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, otherwise they have no power, just like they had none in Wickard v Filburn.

So the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to hear cases involving two private citizens, when neither group is breaking the law? You do realize that for that assertion to fly, you're relying on the assumptions that all laws are just, and all laws sufficiently cover every possible scenario necessary. That's ludicrous.

[racrguy]

When did "all" change its meaning to "some?"

[YALE]

Another possible oversight on your part might be the that the Constitution clearly separates possible cases under the laws of the United States from possible cases of Constitutional issues. It's clearly acknowledging that there will be laws outside of the Constitution itself, and that the Judicial branch has the right to review them.

[Gasser64]

well i mean the wigger working the drive through at braums needs his sick time yo!

I believe that he does. Need it, when he is sick. And if braums isn't up to the task, like any good free marketeer, he should kick them to the curb, tell them why hes doing it, and be on his way to an employer worth a damn. No disingenuous government intervention necessary. Anyone thinks this is just something for the good of the common man, and that isn't designed to help the government is fooling themselves

[svauto-erotic855]

The SCOTUS decision (and it was unanimous, if you bothered to read it) I just linked is exactly what you're asking for.

Isn't the Supreme Court the same court that said that slavery was legal along with the Jim Crow laws?

Aren't they also the same court that in the 1820's ruled that they have the power to decide everything and that the judges have lifetime appointments with out congress passing a law saying those things?

Isn't the Supreme Court the same court that upheld a 2 year federal prison conviction of a man for growing wheat on his land for his own consumption and that ruling has been the foundation for every Federal power grab since that time?

Should I continue?

[Lajntx]

You are more than welcome to enlist and go to war as an infantryman if you would prefer to have what I do. I do warn you however, to be like me, you either have to serve for 30 years or be injured in combat so badly that the military, VA, and independent doctors all agree that you are fucked up for life.

I'll be expecting a post up of your enlistment contract.

So you are saying you are "entitled" to a tax payer funded government check and benefits each month because you voluntarily signed up for something you knew that statistically speaking could possibly phuck you over right?

It`s always amazing how libertarians and other extreme right wingers always seem to justify their actions when they would throw everyone else under the "Constitutional Bus" for doing something else that results in the same thing.

Just admit it man.... you want free shit from the government, and the rest of us to pay for it. No harm in it. It`s not like half of the country ISNT doing it in some form or fashion anyways.

[Gasser64]

Isn't the Supreme Court the same court that said that slavery was legal along with the Jim Crow laws?

Aren't they also the same court that in the 1820's ruled that they have the power to decide everything and that the judges have lifetime appointments with out congress passing a law saying those things?

Isn't the Supreme Court the same court that upheld a 2 year federal prison conviction of a man for growing wheat on his land for his own consumption and that ruling has been the foundation for every Federal power grab since that time?

dun Dun DUUUNNNnnnnn







And heres what happened to yale after that:

[YALE]

Isn't the Supreme Court the same court that said that slavery was legal along with the Jim Crow laws?

Aren't they also the same court that in the 1820's ruled that they have the power to decide everything and that the judges have lifetime appointments with out congress passing a law saying those things?

Isn't the Supreme Court the same court that upheld a 2 year federal prison conviction of a man for growing wheat on his land for his own consumption and that ruling has been the foundation for every Federal power grab since that time?

Should I continue?

By all means. LOL @ stumpfuck Justin thinking you, "shut me down."

[Gasser64]

By all means. LOL @ stumpfuck Justin thinking you, "shut me down."

That's "stumpfuck josh", you stumpfuck lefty. I mean if you're going to sink to name calling, at least call the right name.


And sorry, but you cite the supreme court all the damn time. What he posted is a pretty solid good argument against your old mainstay

[YALE]

That's "stumpfuck josh", you stumpfuck lefty. I mean if you're going to sink to name calling, at least call the right name.


And sorry, but you cite the supreme court all the damn time. What he posted is a pretty solid good argument against your old mainstay

The thing is, Justin, I know what cases he's alluding to. And yes, I do cite the SCOTUS a lot, because Frost cites the original Constitution, and never takes into account how the laws have played out in real life. The primary battleground for that is the Judicial branch. That's why I cite SCOUTS decisions.

[svauto-erotic855]

By all means. LOL @ stumpfuck Justin thinking you, "shut me down."

Hell; I didn't even think that I shut you down and doubt that I could do so if I tried. I was just trying to point out that the court is made up of people who frequently make bad calls and can't seem to keep their personal biases out of their rulings.

[Gasser64]

The thing is, Justin, I know what cases he's alluding to. And yes, I do cite the SCOTUS a lot, because Frost cites the original Constitution, and never takes into account how the laws have played out in real life. The primary battleground for that is the Judicial branch. That's why I cite SCOUTS decisions.

Alright Bill. Just ignore the slavery and jim crow stuff then, i guess. Hell you ignore the constitution constantly too as long as doing so would support your argument. I really dont know who you think youre fooling.

[Forever_frost]

So you are saying you are "entitled" to a tax payer funded government check and benefits each month because you voluntarily signed up for something you knew that statistically speaking could possibly phuck you over right?

It`s always amazing how libertarians and other extreme right wingers always seem to justify their actions when they would throw everyone else under the "Constitutional Bus" for doing something else that results in the same thing.

Just admit it man.... you want free shit from the government, and the rest of us to pay for it. No harm in it. It`s not like half of the country ISNT doing it in some form or fashion anyways.

No, I'm saying I earned my paycheck as I was injured in combat, sent there by the Congress which is also tasked, constitutionally with making war and raising and supporting the Army and Navy. As I am an Army Infantryman (the job has been around since the founding), I'm covered. I've done quite a bit of praying and researching on this before I applied for anything at all and have had this discussion with my law professors over the years and sought constitutional education on if it is permitted.

I can point to my mandate in the constitution, where is the one for wages and the government to be involved in business? Please point to wages and business in the constitution.

[Forever_frost]

The thing is, Justin, I know what cases he's alluding to. And yes, I do cite the SCOTUS a lot, because Frost cites the original Constitution, and never takes into account how the laws have played out in real life. The primary battleground for that is the Judicial branch. That's why I cite SCOUTS decisions.

if you wish the Supreme Court to be able to hear all of these cases which it's mandate doesn't permit, amend the constitution to permit it. Simple. Anyone who wants the government to have more power, that's all they have to do. An amendment.

[YALE]

if you wish the Supreme Court to be able to hear all of these cases which it's mandate doesn't permit, amend the constitution to permit it. Simple. Anyone who wants the government to have more power, that's all they have to do. An amendment.

Again, the horses are out of the barn. You know it. I know it. It doesn't matter who likes it. I'm not saying Obama should make it a right. I don't like that, and all these entrenched workers' rights are why European workers aren't as productive as Americans.