Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually. All one has to do is simply read it. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government may require private enterprises to give vacations to their employees. That's a private matter between the employer and the employee.
Well, allow me to tell you that you DON'T understand the Constitution, clearly or otherwise. Do you pull your own teeth? Or do you go to a dentist? Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a Constitutional scholar because people driven by political agenda TELL you that you are. Bogus....
There is a reason people STUDY... for YEARS... and still don't presume the expertise that you do.
Stop it. It's offensive.
As for the "private matter"... BS... general welfare... commerce clase. Read them. They are your friends.
I think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually. All one has to do is simply read it. No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government may require private enterprises to give vacations to their employees. That's a private matter between the employer and the employee.
Well, allow me to tell you that you DON'T understand the Constitution, clearly or otherwise. Do you pull your own teeth? Or do you go to a dentist? Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a Constitutional scholar because people driven by political agenda TELL you that you are. Bogus....
There is a reason people STUDY... for YEARS... and still don't presume the expertise that you do.
Stop it. It's offensive.
As for the "private matter"... BS... general welfare... commerce clase. Read them. They are your friends.
I like how they accuse Obama, who was a law professor at a 1st tier University and taught US Constitutional Law, of not understanding the constitution. These are the same people who supported Bush packing the justice dept with 3rd tier lawyers from Regents and Liberty University.
Would you agree with a US law to require employers to give vacation time?
Discuss.
No, they have no constitutional authority to do this.
They have every right to do it. Stop making constitutional pronouncements when you don't understand the constitution. Seriously.
As for whether they SHOULD...I think it's a humane thing to do, particularly if it applies to companies with more than 50 employees like many other employment laws.
We understand you think government should do nothing and we should be living in some Upton Sinclair nightmare.
I think I understand the Constitution quite clearly, actually.
Yes that is the delusion of many people. They are wrong, of course. And when somebody reads the same words and arrives at a different (equally plausible meaning) they pretend that no such interpetation is possible.
As you are now, for example.
All one has to do is simply read it.
Try reading the Second amendment and tell me why, if the point of it was to insure that CITIZENS right to bear arms was not to be denied, they bothered to mention state militias?
If their point was SIMPLY to give CITIZENS that right, no mention of the STATE MILITIAS was necessary, now was it?
I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the II amendment, I am merely pointing out that the written word does not have meanings set in concrete as you seem to think they do.
Most companies that large give paid vacations anyway. So now we need a law to dictate it. UNBELIEVABLE.
No, they have no constitutional authority to do this.
They have every right to do it. Stop making constitutional pronouncements when you don't understand the constitution. Seriously.
As for whether they SHOULD...I think it's a humane thing to do, particularly if it applies to companies with more than 50 employees like many other employment laws.
We understand you think government should do nothing and we should be living in some Upton Sinclair nightmare.
I like how they accuse Obama, who was a law professor at a 1st tier University and taught US Constitutional Law, of not understanding the constitution. These are the same people who supported Bush packing the justice dept with 3rd tier lawyers from Regents and Liberty University.
Yes, this is the standard, bush-loving republican response we've come to expect.
In short, I've got mine, fuck everyone else.
Just becase you have paid vacation doesn't mean everyone does. And there's no guarantee your company will never change its vacation policy. Are you one of the 26% bush voting dead enders that still think the unregulated free markets will always have human beings and workers best interests at heart, after the shit that happened in the last few years?
It's a vaction law, nothing more, nothing less. Its hardly the march to socialism. I'm pretty sure nearly every civilized countries on earth mandates paid vacation. Human beings are more important than productivity statistics.
They have every right to do it. Stop making constitutional pronouncements when you don't understand the constitution. Seriously.
As for whether they SHOULD...I think it's a humane thing to do, particularly if it applies to companies with more than 50 employees like many other employment laws.
We understand you think government should do nothing and we should be living in some Upton Sinclair nightmare.
I like how they accuse Obama, who was a law professor at a 1st tier University and taught US Constitutional Law, of not understanding the constitution. These are the same people who supported Bush packing the justice dept with 3rd tier lawyers from Regents and Liberty University.
Pres. Obama may know the constitution, but he has shown through his own policies and actions that he doesnt give a damn what it says.
Oh, and by the way. The school you go to is no sign of intelligence. Nor is holding a degree. I know you have a hard time comprehending that in the real world, but real intelligence is based on merit and not status symbols.
I've never understood why some of you elitists seem to think paying lots of money to go to a name recognized school and buying a degree somehow makes you intelligent. Id rather spend time with a poor man who actually studies issues and knows what he talks about than the so called educated who think they know everything but cant see the nose in front of their face.
They have every right to do it. Stop making constitutional pronouncements when you don't understand the constitution. Seriously.
As for whether they SHOULD...I think it's a humane thing to do, particularly if it applies to companies with more than 50 employees like many other employment laws.
We understand you think government should do nothing and we should be living in some Upton Sinclair nightmare.
Yes that is the delusion of many people. They are wrong, of course. And when somebody reads the same words and arrives at a different (equally plausible meaning) they pretend that no such interpetation is possible.
As you are now, for example.
All one has to do is simply read it.
Try reading the Second amendment and tell me why, if the point of it was to insure that CITIZENS right to bear arms was not to be denied, they bothered to mention state militias?
If their point was SIMPLY to give CITIZENS that right, no mention of the STATE MILITIAS was necessary, now was it?
I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the II amendment, I am merely pointing out that the written word does not have meanings set in concrete as you seem to think they do.
I do not believe that no other interpretation is possible. If that were true everyone would simply agree with me. It seems odd that I have to continually remind people that my posts are simply my opinion in most cases.
I don't deny that some parts of the Constitution may be confusing, the second amendment is an excellent example. That's why we can look at other sources for what they may have meant. It's clear that it was intended for the American people to be free to own guns and that it is unconstitutional for the government to regulate that right in any way.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
Yes that is the delusion of many people. They are wrong, of course. And when somebody reads the same words and arrives at a different (equally plausible meaning) they pretend that no such interpetation is possible.
As you are now, for example.
Try reading the Second amendment and tell me why, if the point of it was to insure that CITIZENS right to bear arms was not to be denied, they bothered to mention state militias?
If their point was SIMPLY to give CITIZENS that right, no mention of the STATE MILITIAS was necessary, now was it?
I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the II amendment, I am merely pointing out that the written word does not have meanings set in concrete as you seem to think they do.
I do not believe that no other interpretation is possible. If that were true everyone would simply agree with me. It seems odd that I have to continually remind people that my posts are simply my opinion in most cases.
I don't deny that some parts of the Constitution may be confusing, the second amendment is an excellent example. That's why we can look at other sources for what they may have meant. It's clear that it was intended for the American people to be free to own guns and that it is unconstitutional for the government to regulate that right in any way.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
I think you also have to take into account the current situation of the country at the time it was written.
Madison was against the US having a standing army, thus he felt all citizens should be armed and available to become the army at any time. The fact that we do have a standing army does not make the right to bear arms any less significant now than it was then. A big point for him was that the people needed the means to rise up against an oppressive government if the need arose again.
I do not believe that no other interpretation is possible. If that were true everyone would simply agree with me. It seems odd that I have to continually remind people that my posts are simply my opinion in most cases.
I don't deny that some parts of the Constitution may be confusing, the second amendment is an excellent example. That's why we can look at other sources for what they may have meant. It's clear that it was intended for the American people to be free to own guns and that it is unconstitutional for the government to regulate that right in any way.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
I think you also have to take into account the current situation of the country at the time it was written.
Madison was against the US having a standing army, thus he felt all citizens should be armed and available to become the army at any time. The fact that we do have a standing army does not make the right to bear arms any less significant now than it was then. A big point for him was that the people needed the means to rise up against an oppressive government if the need arose again.
nd that is it exactlyI do not believe that no other interpretation is possible. If that were true everyone would simply agree with me. It seems odd that I have to continually remind people that my posts are simply my opinion in most cases.
I don't deny that some parts of the Constitution may be confusing, the second amendment is an excellent example. That's why we can look at other sources for what they may have meant. It's clear that it was intended for the American people to be free to own guns and that it is unconstitutional for the government to regulate that right in any way.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
I think you also have to take into account the current situation of the country at the time it was written.
Madison was against the US having a standing army, thus he felt all citizens should be armed and available to become the army at any time. The fact that we do have a standing army does not make the right to bear arms any less significant now than it was then. A big point for him was that the people needed the means to rise up against an oppressive government if the need arose again.
nd that is it exactlyI do not believe that no other interpretation is possible. If that were true everyone would simply agree with me. It seems odd that I have to continually remind people that my posts are simply my opinion in most cases.
I don't deny that some parts of the Constitution may be confusing, the second amendment is an excellent example. That's why we can look at other sources for what they may have meant. It's clear that it was intended for the American people to be free to own guns and that it is unconstitutional for the government to regulate that right in any way.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
I think you also have to take into account the current situation of the country at the time it was written.
Madison was against the US having a standing army, thus he felt all citizens should be armed and available to become the army at any time. The fact that we do have a standing army does not make the right to bear arms any less significant now than it was then. A big point for him was that the people needed the means to rise up against an oppressive government if the need arose again.
the needs of the PEOPLE to be able to rise up against the GOVERNMENT should it become so corrupt that it was needed
The government should not mandate vacation time because it gives them too much control over what should be the right of a business owner. Very communistic in its approach.
Agreed. 
