Posted on 06/28/2007 6:00:10 AM PDT by P-40
Very true.
While I sympathize with Home Depot on this issue, it is outside the authority of the Federal Government to ban the local governments from doing this.
Home Depot should take this issue up with the State governments in which these localities reside.
Normally, I'd be inclined to agree, but not in this case. Constitutionally, the federal government does have the responsibility to ensure that States and localities ensure the protection of the constitutional rights of all citizens of the nation. Localities which attempt to force Home Depot to provide shelter and supplies for day labourers are infringing upon the property rights of the stores, which in turn invokes this particular reverse federalism (federalism works both ways, after all).
They do - we call it the Capitol Building
You haven't ever owned yer own business or dealt with local authorities, have you? Local authorities can dictate quite a lot of things that are none of the feds business. You have to get permits, licenses, abide by ordinances, inspections, etc. The freedom and rights we enjoy are far from absolute. Even private homeowners have to comply with a lot of rules/regs. Sounds to me like you've got Home Depot tolerating the presense of day laborers cuz it attracts/helps their customers who hire them. The town probably wanted some semblance of order, and so said, look, if yer gonna have these day laborers gathering here, put up a shelter. That's what I gather from this.
Actually it can rightfully be the federal government’s business.
Home Depot has the 1st amendment right to petition the government over grievances, whether that petition be directed at the congress or the courts. There are also property rights issues that the local government is interferring with.
In fact, the USSC has already covered this matter under its Tigard decision. Forcing Home Depot to build shelters for illegals in order to secure permission to build or expand a business establishment is probably an illegal exaction and also arbitrary and capricious under the court’s Tigard test.
It’s a very muddy ruling and could be cleaned up better by bringing a case such as this before the court again.
Home Depot needs to take these local fascists before the bench and publically whip them in court. What the locals can do to Home Depot could also be applied to Mom & Pop’s local eatery.
There are dozens of sites where you can read the Tigard case. Here’s one site:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n3-lynch.html
Its NOT the feds business? What I thought illegals WERE the governments business.
No, I haven't owned my own business, but you know what? I don't HAVE to own a business to know what the Constitution says. I don't have to run a company to know government intrusion. And for the record, I AM a homeowner and know all about government regulations on private property. And for the record, I think THOSE are unconstitutional, too. The precedent of tradition does not override the Constitution, when that tradition consists of unconstitutional intrusion of government into the lives and welfare of the citizens, AT ANY LEVEL. Perhaps local authorities ought to be brought back under the control of the Constitution?
I’m in total agreement with you. They really need to address the state legislature as a first step.
If 'Day Laborer' really means 'illegal immigrant', then it most certainly is the feds business.
Unfortunately many of those “Day Laborers” are citizens who lost their jobs because of illegals.
Are you saying that the illegal aliens themselves are a federal issue but once the federal government neglects their duty to confront the illegals, any action by the state regarding the illegals is a non-federal issue?
The state can't force a business to be an accomplice to a federal crime. It is a federal issue when that happens.
The municipality laws have to do with “day laborers”...not illegals. True, some day laborers may be illegals, then the feds should go after them.
But I’m in my mid 50’s and there have been areas in our town where day laborers congregate..and this has been going on for as long as I can remember. If a person needed somebody to help with a big job they’d go by and hire a few men for the day. They weren’t illegals...alcoholics, yes; bums, yes, but not illegals.
Or just someone that wants to make some untaxed income that won’t count against their welfare or unemployment payments.
ping
Please re-read the post.
It went the way of "failure to give a good account."
I prefer the olden days.
If the municipality refuses to ascertain the legal status of the “day laborers” on the site, then Home Depot should be able to show to any jury that the municipality is forcing them to be an unwilling party to federal crime activity.
The federal govt would then be neglecting their own laws if they didn’t address the problem of municipalities forcing Home Depots to be a party to breaking those federal laws.
The federal government requires me to provide identification to prove that I’m a citizen when I apply for a job so why should the federal government exempt day laborers from providing proof of citizenship?
There’s that as well, but those are also citizens.
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.