Bill Gives Public Workers Clout (mandates collective bargaining for state workers)

The Senate is moving closer to passing legislation that would require states to grant public-safety employees, including police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, the right to collectively bargain over hours and wages.

The bill, known as the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would mainly affect about 20 states that don't grant collective-bargaining rights statewide for public-safety workers or that prohibit such bargaining. State and municipal associations, as well as business groups, oppose it, saying it will lead to higher labor costs and taxes, at a time of budget deficits.

The bill, backed by at least six Republicans in the Senate, prohibits strikes and leaves to states' discretion whether to engage in collective bargaining in several areas, including health benefits and pensions.

If the legislation passes and states choose not to grant the minimum collective-bargaining rights outlined in the bill, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees labor-management relations for federal employees, would step in and implement collective-bargaining rights for these workers.

The House passed a version of the bill in 2007. If enacted, the legislation would be a significant victory for unions, which are smarting over the failure of Democrats to pass a separate, broader bill that would have made it easier for unions to organize workers, especially in the private sector, where union membership has been in decline for years.

The public-safety bargaining bill was first introduced in the mid-1990s. Union officials say they now have their best shot to pass it, but that time could run out if Democrats don't act soon and go on to lose several Senate seats in November

More public-sector workers belonged to a union than private-sector workers last year for the first time ever.

The most prominent advocate of a constitutional convention is judge Andrew P. Napolitano, who frequently appears on Fox News. He has written a book on the subject.

Just last year, Law Professor Randy E. Barnett of Georgetown University proposed a “Bill of Federalism”, a list of ten amendments to perform similar adjustments to the list I posted, but his list had some serious flaws, and the debate has extended far beyond his proposals:

1. Disallow federal income taxes (i.e., repeal Sixteenth Amendment), as well as gift, estate, and consumption taxes; allow FairTax; require a 3/5 supermajority to raise or set new taxes

2. Set limits on the Interstate Commerce Clause

3. Disallow unfunded mandates, and conditions on funding.

4. Close a constitutional loophole that allows treaties to override established limits on power

5. Extend free speech consideration to campaign contributions, and to cover any medium of communication (including the Internet)

6. Allow a resolution of three quarters of the states to rescind any federal law or regulation.

7. Establish Term Limits for Senators and Representatives.

8. Provide the President with a line-item veto to balance the budget on any year in which it is unbalanced.

9. Reinforce the Ninth Amendment by specifying additional rights and by providing a process for any person to prove the existence of an unenumerated right.

10. Restrict judicial activism by mandating an originalist method of interpretation.

However, it was no surprise that nobody in the federal government gave his proposals any serious consideration. This further indicates that they are *unable* to reform themselves, which is why the States must intervene.

Right now, individual States are forming issue blocs over a bunch of subjects, but all with the underlying theme of opposition to unconstitutional federal authority. This is best seen at the Tenth Amendment Center, and their tracking of the nullification movement:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

In several States there has been talk by individual legislators about constitutional convention resolutions, and how best to bring them about.

Since the early 20th Century, the progressive movement introduced propaganda into the public schools that is still taught, that a constitutional convention is “Unthinkable. It would be controlled by radicals.” This concept is now firmly ingrained in the public mind, but it is patently false.

A CC required 2/3rds (34) of the States just to convene, and 3/4ths (38) of the States to pass any agreed to changes. This precludes any possibility of radicals taking over the convention. And about the only consensus is the restoration of balanced federalism, reducing the power of the federal government, and increasing the power of the State governments.

Still, the process is so incredibly difficult that most believe that the 38 States would have to be in agreement *before* even calling a convention. Thus the convention would meet, propose, vote, and return the draft to the States in short order. But then the interesting part begins.

The convention needs to remain seated until the 38 States have ratified the new constitution. And *then*, by simple majority vote, they oversee the structural changes of the government.

This amounts to one thing: the ability, by simple majority vote, to relieve and replace any federal official or officer who refuses to make the constitutional changes as required.

It overcomes a problem that goes back to Marbury v. Madison in 1810, where the Supreme Court ordered the president to obey, and he refused. A constitutional convention would be the one situation where, if the president refused, he would not have to be impeached, but with a simple majority vote removed from office.

And the same with any other official or officer who refused to comply.

For further information, here are some other potential constitutional amendments that are smoldering in the background. Some are realistic, and some are pipe dreams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_attempts_to_amend_the_U.S._Constitution

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.