New Township rule on firearms for poll workers and voters NO GUNS or be arrested.

[stainless1911]

Why does the public sector, the government that is supposed to be restricted by the Constitution, have the right to set rules and conditions for employment/access to public property that are in direct conflict with the Constitution as a condition of employment?

Because the constitution exists only to those who acknowledge it.

 

[DrTodd]

Yep... aware of that... but where I was going is....

While private sector employers are not restricted by the Constitution and also have the private property right to set any rules and conditions for employment/access to the private property as a condition of employment...

Why does the public sector, the government that is supposed to be restricted by the Constitution, have the right to set rules and conditions for employment/access to public property that are in direct conflict with the Constitution as a condition of employment?

In Adler v Board of Education (1952), the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." However, today the court deals with balancing the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's individual interests. However, many people still maintain the typical argument against government employee's exercise of constitutional rights.
see:
http://goo.gl/dXrcS

 

[stainless1911]

You dont have a constitutional right to work for the government, but you don't just toss your rights when you work for them.

Don't think so? Ok, instead of looking at the second amendment, let's say instead, that because a girl went to work for the SOS or McD's, she loses the right to vote. How far would that go before the right was restored?

 

[sharkey]

You dont have a constitutional right to work for the government, but you don't just toss your rights when you work for them.

Don't think so? Ok, instead of looking at the second amendment, let's say instead, that because a girl went to work for the SOS or McD's, she loses the right to vote. How far would that go before the right was restored?

Both can prevent your right to vote simply by requiring you to work during the election. Early voting voids my logic.

ETA clarity. Both can prevent you from voting during working hours. I only remember one employer of mine allowing employees to leave during work to get to the polls.

 

[stainless1911]

Absentee ballot.

 

[sharkey]

Absentee ballot.

See edit

 

[Big Gay Al]

I used to work for Underwriters Laboratories in Northbrook, IL. They gave EVERYONE the whole day off on presidential election day. The only place I've ever worked for that did that. It was considered a paid holiday.

 

[Bikenut]

In Adler v Board of Education (1952), the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." However, today the court deals with balancing the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's individual interests. However, many people still maintain the typical argument against government employee's exercise of constitutional rights.
see:
http://goo.gl/dXrcS

I appreciate the link and thank you for it DrTodd... now I must go and take two aspirin for the headache reading all that gave me.

The following is just how I see things.... right, wrong, or indifferent... it is my personal viewpoint.

I have a problem with the concept that government can evade the restrictions placed upon it by "we the people" in a Constitution (Federal or State) or in law (Federal or State) simply by referring to itself as something other than a unit of government.

After all....when government starts playing word games saying that ... as an "employer" it can infringe upon an individual's right because "employers" do not have to abide by the Constitution... or that because the word "Authority" is not specifically included in the law as being a unit of government... then we have a government that can evade and avoid any and all restraints upon it's power merely by changing it's name.

 

[WilDChilD]

I have a problem with the concept that government can evade the restrictions placed upon it by "we the people" in a Constitution (Federal or State) or in law (Federal or State) simply by referring to itself as something other than a unit of government.

After all....when government starts playing word games saying that ... as an "employer" it can infringe upon an individual's right because "employers" do not have to abide by the Constitution... or that because the word "Authority" is not specifically included in the law as being a unit of government... then we have a government that can evade and avoid any and all restraints upon it's power merely by changing it's name.

Biknut
for
President

 

[Raggs]

Biknut
for
President

with his running mate DrTodd!

 

[Venator]

I used to work for Underwriters Laboratories in Northbrook, IL. They gave EVERYONE the whole day off on presidential election day. The only place I've ever worked for that did that. It was considered a paid holiday.

Most (Vital services must work) State of Michigan employees get the day off and are paid. Think Unions.

 

[stainless1911]

I appreciate the link and thank you for it DrTodd... now I must go and take two aspirin for the headache reading all that gave me.

The following is just how I see things.... right, wrong, or indifferent... it is my personal viewpoint.

I have a problem with the concept that government can evade the restrictions placed upon it by "we the people" in a Constitution (Federal or State) or in law (Federal or State) simply by referring to itself as something other than a unit of government.

After all....when government starts playing word games saying that ... as an "employer" it can infringe upon an individual's right because "employers" do not have to abide by the Constitution... or that because the word "Authority" is not specifically included in the law as being a unit of government... then we have a government that can evade and avoid any and all restraints upon it's power merely by changing it's name.

You can always vote. you know, work within the system to change the system.

 

[CoonDog]

Perhaps send a complaint and a copy of the letter to both the MI SOS and also the "Public Integrity Unit" at the Attorney General's office: http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-58056---,00.html

 

[DrTodd]

Yep... aware of that... but where I was going is....

While private sector employers are not restricted by the Constitution and also have the private property right to set any rules and conditions for employment/access to the private property as a condition of employment...

Why does the public sector, the government that is supposed to be restricted by the Constitution, have the right to set rules and conditions for employment/access to public property that are in direct conflict with the Constitution as a condition of employment?

As most of you may know, a few of us here are employed in public education. Are you saying if we stood in front of a classroom and extolled the virtues of voting for Obama, without giving a fair shake to Romney (or any other candidate), that would be OK under the notion of free speech? What about me extolling the virtues of atheism and publicly declaring that religion is a myth, under the notion of freedom of religion I should not be called to task for my behavior? Be very careful what you wish for...

 

[MAC702]

You dont have a constitutional right to work for the government, but you don't just toss your rights when you work for them...

You ever read an enlistment contract?

 

[stainless1911]

You ever read an enlistment contract?

I have read the constitution. Since it was paid for with blood, it's sorta hard to convince me that one should p!$$ it away over some contract or paycheck.

 

[Shadow Bear]

As most of you may know, a few of us here are employed in public education. Are you saying if we stood in front of a classroom and extolled the virtues of voting for Obama, without giving a fair shake to Romney (or any other candidate), that would be OK under the notion of free speech? What about me extolling the virtues of atheism and publicly declaring that religion is a myth, under the notion of freedom of religion I should not be called to task for my behavior? Be very careful what you wish for...

No, we'd call you a college professor.....

 

[Shadow Bear]

I have read the constitution. Since it was paid for with blood, it's sorta hard to convince me that one should p!$$ it away over some contract or paycheck.

Its a difficult decision, sometimes, but if you want a job........

Oh!

 

[WilDChilD]

I have read the constitution. Since it was paid for with blood, it's sorta hard to convince me that one should p!$$ it away over some contract or paycheck.

If everybody followed this logic nobody would have a job, and then there wouldnt be anybody for the government to steal money from to pay you with.