Posted on 04/20/2005 5:36:46 AM PDT by FlyLow
It's nice to hear Americans talk about privacy and fighting for their rights. But sometimes I have to say: Do you know what you're talking about?
In Okemos, Mich., a 71-year-old health nut named Howard Weyers runs a health-care benefits company called Weyco. Weyers thinks his employees should be healthy, too, so years ago, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who works with her and then meets certain exercise goals earns a $110 bonus per month.
So far, so good. But then, in November 2003, Weyers made an announcement that shocked his staff: "I'm introducing a smoking policy," he said.
"You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."
No smoking at work. No smoking at home. No nicotine patch or nicotine gum. The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.
"Two hundred people in a room," Weyers recalls, "and they went at me."
"I yelled out," said Anita Epolito, "'You can't do that to me, it's against the law.'"
That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).
Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.
Today, he calls the policy a success. Twenty Weyco employees who smoked, stopped. Some of their spouses even quit.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Shall I confer with your doctor about your delusions?
How old were you again? You never answered. Where did you learn your version of the meaning of the constitution? Where did you get the bizarre idea that anyone other than naturalized citizens take that oath you keep referring to? When did you take that oath? Who forced you to take it? Where are the names of the people who agree with you on the concept of the constitution that you invented?
Inquiring minds want to know.
We had much the same discussion on 'States Rights' just the other day on a different thread. You bowed out. If you want to continue, the threads still there.
I bowed out because we were going in circles and we'd already agreed on the main issue. I don't know why you have so much difficulty with this point, but it's not my problem.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that a private citizen can violate the Constitution.
Nonsense. Justice Marshall expressly says that because the powers created by the Constitution are conferred on the federal government alone, the limitations on those powers also apply only to the federal government. That means the Constitution doesn't limit the powers of anyone but the U.S. federal government. The fact that it doesn't limit the powers of private citizens follows as immediately as the fact that it doesn't bind the government of France.
Who wrote that manifesto on your goofy website?
The Oath of Citizenship
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
--- To me, it's self evident that all of us, even our employers, are obligated to support & defend the Bill of Rights.
No it doesn't. I have never taken that oath, I have only met a handful of people who have, and I'm guessing you haven't either.
You guess wrong a lot. I took the oath to support & defend our Constitution upon entering the Army.
But it isn't really necessary to raise your hand and say it, -- it's an obligation of all citizens.
If you have, you missed the point of the constitution and should return to whatever hell hole you came from.
Whatever. -- Your personal asides are becoming a joke, -- on you. What do you think they accomplish?
This thing you do claiming to be logic is quite dizzying.
Please explain again how an employer's right to employ whom he will is BS, and that the proper way to defend the Unspoken Right of Employment is somehow enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and is a manditory duty of any employer who wants to remain a citizen. I swear you can see more penumbras and eminations than a gross of Federal Circuit Judges.
And while you are at it, please document this claim:
Many employers are now claiming the power to regulate an employee's right to own weapons.
I bowed out because we were going in circles and we'd already agreed on the main issue.
If we agreed that 'States [do not have] Rights' to ignore the Constitution, you are correct.
I don't know why you have so much difficulty with this point, but it's not my problem.
This point? -- That Fed/State/Local governments, -- or individuals, -- can violate the Constitution? -- Seems logical to me.
-----------------------------------
[The Barron opinion, on State powers] has nothing to do with the fact that a private citizen can violate the Constitution.
Nonsense. Justice Marshall expressly says that because the powers created by the Constitution are conferred on the federal government alone, the limitations on those powers also apply only to the federal government. That means the Constitution doesn't limit the powers of anyone but the U.S. federal government.
But as you've said elsewhere, Marshall's Barron opinion was made moot by the 14th Amendment.
The fact that it doesn't limit the powers of private citizens follows as immediately as the fact that it doesn't bind the government of France.
Nonsense. Marshall's erroneous opinion in Barron, about State powers, -- has no bearing on the fact that individuals can violate the principles of our Constitution.
You may want to reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights. Especially the phrases like: "Congress shall make no law" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You will notice that each and every amendment in the BoR is a limitation on the powers of Federal Government. They are not a limitation on individuals, as the 10th A. clearly states.
One supports and defends the Constitution by granting to the Government the powers enumerated within it, and tenaciously denying it the powers not granted.
< This thing you do claiming to be logic is quite dizzying.
Your inability to read in context is not my problem.
Please explain again how an employer's right to employ whom he will is BS, and that the proper way to defend the Unspoken Right of Employment is somehow enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, and is a manditory duty of any employer who wants to remain a citizen. I swear you can see more penumbras and eminations than a gross of Federal Circuit Judges.
I quote the Constitution, & you see penumbras. Try to get it straight.
And while you are at it, please document this claim:
Many employers are now claiming the power to regulate an employee's right to own weapons.
Just a few months ago, - ims,- Weyerhauser in Oklahoma was trying to ban guns in parking lots.
Big flap on FR, and the usual suspects were trying to defend the 'right' of an employer to keep guns out of employee's cars. Look it up. Amusing thread.
One supports and defends the Constitution by granting to the Government the powers enumerated within it, and tenaciously denying it the powers not granted.
And you're defending liberty by tenaciously insisting that employers can control employees behavior at home.
-- I see.
And exactly how is that "regulat[ing] an employee's right to own weapons" ? If I say you cannot bring your gun on my private property, that effects your ownership in what way?
If we agreed that 'States [do not have] Rights' to ignore the Constitution, you are correct.
Yep -- and the further point that states are obliged to give a high degree of respect to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, despite current Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence to the contrary. In fact I took the even stronger position that the entire notion of 'states' rights' is utterly foreign to the Constitutional scheme: states have 'powers', not 'rights'. The only 'rights' mentioned anywhere in the Constitution belong to 'the People', 'persons', or 'citizens'.
[A]s you've said elsewhere, Marshall's Barron opinion was made moot by the 14th Amendment.
His contention that the Constitution didn't bind the governments of the states was mooted by that Amendment, yes. But not (this is still my opinion; I know it's not yours) because he was mistaken at the time, but because the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government new authority over the states. None of which has any bearing on the ability of private persons to violate the Constitution.
Let's review the bidding here, shall we? You asked another poster for a cite in support of the claim that it's not possible for a private person to violate the Constitution, as though that were some weird novelty you'd never heard of before. I handed you Barron as a starting point for a study of the history of the Constitutional 'state action' requirement.
You then asked me where in that opinion Marshall opined that private citizens can't violate the Constitution. I quoted you the passage in which he states that Constitutional limitations on powers apply only to the powers created by the Constitution -- that is, the powers of the federal government. From that statement it follows as the night the day that, in Marshall's opinion, private citizens can't violate the Constitution for the very simple reason that no one but the FedGov can violate the Constitution. Private U.S. citizens can't do it. Frenchmen can't do it. Dogs can't do it. Cats can't do it. The birdies in the air and the fishies in the sea can't do it. Only the FedGov can do it.
Whether you, I, or the man in the moon agrees with Marshall is beside the point. The point was that you wanted a citation. Now you've got one. You can think it's 'erroneous' all you want to, but erroneous or not, it does support the claim you wanted a cite in support of, and it is part of the history of the Constitutional doctrine at issue here. What you do with it is up to you.
I'm going to go watch a movie and go to bed. Wake me if something genuinely new comes up.
No, I'm tenaciously defending liberty of employers and employees not to be interfered with by an intrusive Federal government, which has no Constitutionally granted power to do so. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on what Citizens may do by mutual agreement. No where in the Bill of Rights does it say "The People shall not..."
Suppose he decided that he only wanted Republicans working for him, and he required all employees to join the Republican Party. Suppose he decided that nobody should drink alcohol at all, and he fired anyone who drank at any time. Suppose he decided that he wasn't going to hire anyone who went to church, or didn't go to church. There is a fine line between his right to employ who he wants, and what is legitimately none of his business. If he makes the argument that it costs more on the health benefits, then he could require smokers to pay a higher premium. I am against this practice. I don't think it is any of his business.
And exactly how is that "regulat[ing] an employee's right to own weapons" ? If I say you cannot bring your gun on my private property, that effects your ownership in what way?
By affecting my ability to have a weapon on the way to work or after work. - Obviously.
- Really, -- you should look up that thread. -- It's very educating as to how conservatives will cut their own throats to defend a pointless effort to control behavior.
Judging from the howls of protest on this board when it came down, no.
You're just a racist ass.
This is the key issue here. You nailed it. The employer has no right to direct his employees at a time when he is NOT PAYING THEM. When he is paying them, it's a different story. What they do on their off time is none of his business because he is not paying them during that time, and has no business telling them what to do.
Nonsense. You are in no way required to work at Weyerhauser, nor to come on to my property. If you want to carry, by all means do so at some other place of employment that allows it. Or park off site and walk an extra block to work.
Where do you get off demanding that your gun rights should supersede my property rights? Since the Militia is every able-bodied citizen, how about my right not to have a soldier of the People's Militia quartered on me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.