Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

Well, that's a different clause from the Constitution then, the equal protection clause.

and it's true...but I am not sure how you think that applies to 'at-will' employment laws.

We are free to travel to any state in the Union we want, we are free to have the basic fundamental rights in each state...in other words, I can leave my home state, and say go to Vermont, and enjoy the same basic fundamental rights, I can buy property there, engage in business etc...but I still have to follow Vermont law, so long as that law doesn't violate the US Constitution...then it would be an illegal law.
"Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole."

What do you think the clause means?
It doesn't matter what that means. What this means is what matters: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equal protection of the laws is a civil right only the unethical and immoral right-wing prefers to bear false-witness to.
 
Because I spent 20 years working in the utility construction business. Most underground utilities are put in using an HDD machine (Horizontal Directional Drilling). It is very expensive to go for long distances. And the major tree root systems can stop the drilling unless it is right at the machine. And rock can stop it completely.

Add to that the extreme high voltages of the transmission lines, and you would have to open a major trench instead of boring.
It is why we need to advance boring machine technologies.
 
It doesn't matter what that means. What this means is what matters: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equal protection of the laws is a civil right only the unethical and immoral right-wing prefers to bear false-witness to.

And the at-will employment laws only describe the relationship between employer and employee. It does not mean anyone without a job can collect unemployment compensation.
 
And the at-will employment laws only describe the relationship between employer and employee. It does not mean anyone without a job can collect unemployment compensation.
The State must respect that obligation of that contract.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Any questions?
 
The State must respect that obligation of that contract.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Any questions?

The unemployment compensation does respect that contract. It does not change the relationship between employer and employee one tiny bit.
 
The unemployment compensation does respect that contract. It does not change the relationship between employer and employee one tiny bit.
Simply making up right-wing fantasy doesn't make it so. Why do You believe this Constitutional law would not be available or controlling in any Court of law: At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
 
Boring technologies are advancing all the time. And, any subway system would benefit.

Do you think there are a lot of subway systems being built in rocky, heavily forested wilderness?

Yes, boring technologies are advancing all the time. What I started working with 20+ years ago are very different from what is being used now.

And your idea that putting transmission powerlines underground requires huge subway-sized tunnels is ridiculous. And Maine has a LOT of groundwater. Which adds to the difficulty in any boring operations.
 
Do you think there are a lot of subway systems being built in rocky, heavily forested wilderness?

Yes, boring technologies are advancing all the time. What I started working with 20+ years ago are very different from what is being used now.

And your idea that putting transmission powerlines underground requires huge subway-sized tunnels is ridiculous. And Maine has a LOT of groundwater. Which adds to the difficulty in any boring operations.
So what. In California, we can prevent fires in our State.
 
Simply making up right-wing fantasy doesn't make it so. Why do You believe this Constitutional law would not be available or controlling in any Court of law: At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Current unemployment compensation laws do not change this at all.

"At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

The employee is still free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. The employer is still free to discharge individuals for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all.
 
So what. In California, we can prevent fires in our State.

Putting transmission powerlines underground would cost roughly 8x what it costs to run them above ground. And it is much safer for people, animals, and for preventing fires. Transmission line carry huge voltages. If there is an issue with the lines underground, that power makes it even harder to repair since the step-potential is exponentially greater.

I spent 20+ years working utility construction. I know what I am talking about.
 
Well, that's a different clause from the Constitution then, the equal protection clause.

and it's true...but I am not sure how you think that applies to 'at-will' employment laws.

We are free to travel to any state in the Union we want, we are free to have the basic fundamental rights in each state...in other words, I can leave my home state, and say go to Vermont, and enjoy the same basic fundamental rights, I can buy property there, engage in business etc...but I still have to follow Vermont law, so long as that law doesn't violate the US Constitution...then it would be an illegal law.
"Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole."

What do you think the clause means?
I've been down this road with him multiple times, so I can save you a lot of effort. Daniel's position on Unemployment Compensation boils down to this. Because you can get UC if you are laid off, he thinks not being able to get it if you quit isn't fair and is an unequal application of the law. He literally thinks he should be able to quit and collect UC or not even work in the first place, but it's the only place he objects to means testing and having to qualify for something. I know it's a very strange belief, but he actually has taken it to court. We're waiting to hear how long the judge laughs when he dismisses the case.
 
I've been down this road with him multiple times, so I can save you a lot of effort. Daniel's position on Unemployment Compensation boils down to this. Because you can get UC if you are laid off, he thinks not being able to get it if you quit isn't fair and is an unequal application of the law. He literally thinks he should be able to quit and collect UC or not even work in the first place, but it's the only place he objects to means testing and having to qualify for something. I know it's a very strange belief, but he actually has taken it to court. We're waiting to hear how long the judge laughs when he dismisses the case.

I don't believe he has taken it to court.

But yeah, it is a ridiculous idea for everyone without a job to be able to collect unemployment compensation. But he is adamant that it would cure all our problems.
 
By going underground?
That's exactly what I'm saying. You apparently think burying hundreds of miles of cable won't impact nature at all. On the contrary, it has a big impact while you're laying it, and when you're done, you still have a cleared area above and around the buried cables that you have to maintain. It's less vulnerable to weather damage than above ground, and cables don't break and fall off towers, presenting a fire hazard, and it looks prettier than a series of towers and cables running across the landscape, but it still has a big impact.
 
I don't believe he has taken it to court.

But yeah, it is a ridiculous idea for everyone without a job to be able to collect unemployment compensation. But he is adamant that it would cure all our problems.
He won't even acknowledge that a program guaranteeing everyone payments if they aren't actively working a job is just another welfare program.
 

Forum List

Back
Top