So, Walker won the election. Will he now be indicted?

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, Walker won the election. Will he now be indicted?

Chances of an indictment 50%.

Chances of a conviction, if indicted < 10%.

No doubt Walker will try to get the trial moved to Waukesha County with judge Prosser presiding. The jury pool will consist mostly of people who voted for him.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So .. this thread WAS, in fact, an effort to distract attention away from Tuesday's victory?



The thing is, BigT, I don't agree with you. And you seemingly cannot understand that just because you hold a belief does not translate to everyone else in the world also holding that belief, or that belief being objectively true.

I don't know what your particular financial circumstances are, but neither you, nor your mom, are owed a particular level of income. If you were a buggy whip maker, and you had been pushing a law mandating that cars must carry a buggy whip, the defeat of that law would have been a good thing. And you would not change my mind about the wisdom of that law by announcing that because the law had failed, you and your mom faced homelessness. The reason you would face homelessness in that scenario, BigT, is that the public no longer wanted or needed buggy whips now that cars, rather than horse-drawn buggys, were the primary method of transport. And you can't sustain your buggy whip business by demanding that the state pass laws to support it on the basis of sympathy for your tenuous financial position.

So, too, here. The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws, and that's now changing. This is a positive thing for the states, and the economy in general. I don't take pleasure in your problems, BigT, but I do take pleasure in seeing Wisconsin voters convincingly and soundly repudiate the efforts of public sector unions.

Well, this is certainly telling, you saying that teachers are like buggy whip makers. Buggy whip makers were made obsolete by the introduction of the automobile. So, obviously some drastic change must have occurred that changed teachers from essential contributors to society to economic castaways.

What might that drastic change have been? Oh yeah, you got a fine public education, good enough that you were able to afford to send your children to private school. So since you already got yours, public school teachers are obsolete. Fuck 'em, and all of the poor kids who need 'em, right? Let them go the way of the buggy whip maker.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

Well, this is certainly telling, you saying that teachers are like buggy whip makers.

No, he didn't say that at all. How can you quote what he said and then misquote it in your summary? He said public sector unions were like buggy whips. It's not that great an analogy, but it's ludicrous to say that Bricker was equating teachers with something obsolete.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Scarlett67

I'm too exhausted to get into the politics, but jeez, could you guys come up with a few more ways to misspell her name?

It's Kleefisch. Pronounced CLAY-fish.

</public service message>

Whaaa? Crayfish? Clayface? Queefitch?

[Reginald Hobbes]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Chances of an indictment 50%.

Chances of a conviction, if indicted < 10%.

No doubt Walker will try to get the trial moved to Waukesha County with judge Prosser presiding. The jury pool will consist mostly of people who voted for him.

Your 50% seems a little high, considering it's been 2+ years and they've come up with nothing yet.
The trial (if it occurs) would be in Milwaukee county. The governor does not have the power to unilaterally change the venue. And Prosser, being on the Supreme Court, would not preside in any case.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Originally Posted by John Mace

No, he didn't say that at all. How can you quote what he said and then misquote it in your summary? He said public sector unions were like buggy whips. It's not that great an analogy, but it's ludicrous to say that Bricker was equating teachers with something obsolete.

Wait, the unions are the whips? So when Bricker said "The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws," he was saying that the whips were the objects responsible for passing the laws, and not the people who made the whips?

I would also point out that part of the reason Bricker was able to get a good education is that his teachers were in a union, a benefit he would deny to the current crop of students with poor parents.

You righties are so cute when you think that your arguments aren't ridiculously transparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. If this were a thread about CEO pay, there would be wailing a gnashing of teeth over the fact that the CEO is just negotiating a salary based upon what he is worth, and he is worth exactly what somebody is willing to pay in a free economy. But if a union, which is just as much as product of a free economy as a CEO, negotiates compensation, that's bad, that's "buggy whip laws," soooo evil. A union is just people pooling their labor for a better seat at the bargaining table, exactly the way that investors pool their capital together for a better seat at the bargaining table. Can you imagine what would happen to Bricker's head if the government passed a law banning investors from being able to pool their capital together to form a corporation? It would make one hell of a mess.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Reginald Hobbes

Your 50% seems a little high, considering it's been 2+ years and they've come up with nothing yet.
The trial (if it occurs) would be in Milwaukee county. The governor does not have the power to unilaterally change the venue. And Prosser, being on the Supreme Court, would not preside in any case.

The investigation, as a whole, started in 2010, but the focus on Walker only in late 2011. He first met with prosecutors in February 2012.

The probe started when $11,000 of charitable contributions went missing. (Since then the dollar amount has increased.) Originally, it had nothing to do with Walker.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...in-on-him.html

The first shoe dropped last week when it was reported that, contrary to Walker’s assertions, the secret investigation was commenced only after a two-year period of alleged stonewalling of the District Attorney’s efforts by then Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker’s office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...in-supporters/

As far as venue goes, we know darned well Walker will, as I said, TRY, to get it moved. They succeeded in getting some of the recall court proceedings moved from Dane County (home of the state Capitol) to Waukesha County.

I'm not certain, but a lower court judge might not be deemed appropriate for trying a sitting governor. Certainly there are many lower court judges friendly to Walker, but few more friendly than Prosser. An exception would be Gableman, who is even more ethically challenged.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

Wait, the unions are the whips?

To be more precise, it was particular policies (like tenure) that were the whips.

So when Bricker said "The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws," he was saying that the whips were the objects responsible for passing the laws, and not the people who made the whips?

Looks like your teachers never taught you how properly to analyze an analogy.

I would also point out that part of the reason Bricker was able to get a good education is that his teachers were in a union, a benefit he would deny to the current crop of students with poor parents.

You don't know that.

You righties are so cute when you think that your arguments aren't ridiculously transparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

On that note, we're done.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by John Mace

To be more precise, it was particular policies (like tenure) that were the whips.

It's a hackneyed analogy that doesn't apply here.

The idea behind this old saw is that, when a particular good is no longer desired by people who used to use it, the government shouldn't prop up the makers of the good by paying them money or by mandating people to purchase the good.

Policies aren't goods. That's confusing and makes no sense.

Tenure might be a good, but the people who used to use tenure still use it, and most of them still want it (I'm personally fine getting rid of it, but I'd appreciate being compensated in some other form for this lost job benefit). It's not a buggy whip, since it's desired still by its users.

The analogy only works if the government is paying the makers of the good too much money--in which case, the good must be public education, and the makers of the good must be educators. Even then, it doesn't work, because many people still value public education.

There are plenty of strong arguments against public-sector unions (and in my opinion even stronger arguments in their favor). The buggy-whip-analogy is not helpful or clarifying, I think.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

Wait, the unions are the whips? So when Bricker said "The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws," he was saying that the whips were the objects responsible for passing the laws, and not the people who made the whips?

I would also point out that part of the reason Bricker was able to get a good education is that his teachers were in a union, a benefit he would deny to the current crop of students with poor parents.

I disagree. My son's private school is providing a better education at a lower cost, and the employees are not unionized.

If this were a thread about CEO pay, there would be wailing a gnashing of teeth over the fact that the CEO is just negotiating a salary based upon what he is worth, and he is worth exactly what somebody is willing to pay in a free economy. But if a union, which is just as much as product of a free economy as a CEO, negotiates compensation, that's bad, that's "buggy whip laws," soooo evil. A union is just people pooling their labor for a better seat at the bargaining table, exactly the way that investors pool their capital together for a better seat at the bargaining table. Can you imagine what would happen to Bricker's head if the government passed a law banning investors from being able to pool their capital together to form a corporation? It would make one hell of a mess.

No. The union seeks protection from the law for its negotiating "tactics." If the union were truly working in a free economy, then I'd have no heartburn about it. But the union steps on to the playing field clad in armor provided by the National Labor Relations Act.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

You righties are so cute when you think that your arguments aren't ridiculously transparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. [...] Can you imagine what would happen to Bricker's head if the government passed a law banning investors from being able to pool their capital together to form a corporation? It would make one hell of a mess.

Please dial back the rhetoric here. This is overly insulting and personal.

[Bricker]

I said:

Originally Posted by Bricker

The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws, and that's now changing.

You said I said:

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

Well, this is certainly telling, you saying that teachers are like buggy whip makers.

I think I don't need to say anything else.

[August West]

Originally Posted by Don't Call Me Shirley

But if a union, which is just as much as product of a free economy as a CEO, negotiates compensation, that's bad, that's "buggy whip laws," soooo evil. A union is just people pooling their labor for a better seat at the bargaining table, exactly the way that investors pool their capital together for a better seat at the bargaining table.

Except it's different for public sector unions. A private union can't pool its resources and use them to get the CEO fired and bankroll a more union-friendly successor.

WEAC (the Wisconsin teacher's union) "spent $2.5 million on lobbying in 2009 and 2010, more than any other group in the state, according to the Government Accountability Board

The real reason the teacher's union in Wisconsin wanted Walker recalled was because he killed their cash cow. The union included contract language that forced local school districts to buy teachers' health insurance from the teacher's union. They charged rates far higher that comparable health plans and used the profits to lobby for even better wages and benefits.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I disagree. My son's private school is providing a better education at a lower cost, and the employees are not unionized.

Do you consider yourself a poor parent? Not an equivocation gotcha, I mean that in terms of currency. Do you think that unionised teachers are worse teachers than non-unionised teachers? Do you think that public education should be abolished?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Of course, I don't know what a good thread title would be. "IDH Mutations: Oncometabolite Deregulation of Epigenetic Remodeling," would be my guess.

You had to get deregulation in there somewhere, didn't you?

Originally Posted by Bricker

This is a positive thing for the states, and the economy in general.

Okay, I'm familiar with Hazlitt's argument in Economics in One Lesson. Do you accept his contention that workers should receive unemployment benefits and training to perform another job after the natural collapse of an industry? Do you think the makers of the buggy whip are entitled to a roof over their head and food? Would you support a law that removed the food and housing of buggy whip makers, as their profession was obsolete? Do you accept the notion that in a post-scarcity economy, people should not be put to work unnecessarily and that the burden of working should not be distributed based on historical privilege?

[Bookkeeper]

Originally Posted by August West

The real reason the teacher's union in Wisconsin wanted Walker recalled was because he killed their cash cow. The union included contract language that forced local school districts to buy teachers' health insurance from the teacher's union. They charged rates far higher that comparable health plans and used the profits to lobby for even better wages and benefits.

Then why wasn't this specific contract clause (which presumably the employer thought was a good idea to agree to originally) overturned by the legislature? There was no need to abolish collective bargaining entirely to remove the specific clauses that the employers had buyer's remorse over and didn't want to wait for the next round of negotiations to deal back out.

Is there some legal restriction that prevents the state from doing this? (I know that provincial/federal governments in Canada regularly change union contracts by legislation.)

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Do you consider yourself a poor parent? Not an equivocation gotcha, I mean that in terms of currency. Do you think that unionised teachers are worse teachers than non-unionised teachers? Do you think that public education should be abolished?

Poor parent: no. Unionized teachers worse than non-unionized teachers: Yes. Abolish public education? No.

A little explanation about the middle answer: I think that for the most part, union and non-union teachers will present similar skill sets. But because there is difficulty ridding the workforce of poor teachers in a union environment, I think the distribution curve at the lower end is heftier with unions.

Okay, I'm familiar with Hazlitt's argument in Economics in One Lesson. Do you accept his contention that workers should receive unemployment benefits and training to perform another job after the natural collapse of an industry? Do you think the makers of the buggy whip are entitled to a roof over their head and food? Would you support a law that removed the food and housing of buggy whip makers, as their profession was obsolete? Do you accept the notion that in a post-scarcity economy, people should not be put to work unnecessarily and that the burden of working should not be distributed based on historical privilege?

Should workers get unemployment bennies and training following the collapse of an industry? Yes. Are makers of the buggy whip entitled to a roof and food? No. Would I support a law removing food and roofs from the heads of buggy whip makers? No.

I don't agree we're in a post-scarcity economy.

[gamerunknown]

I don't think we're in a post-scarcity economy, I just wanted to know what your position would be if we were.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Unionized teachers worse than non-unionized teachers: Yes.

Do you have any evidence of that?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So, too, here. The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws, and that's now changing. This is a positive thing for the states, and the economy in general.

Union-busting ain't, and neither is deregulation.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I don't think we're in a post-scarcity economy, I just wanted to know what your position would be if we were.

I really haven't thought about it.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I presented my argument by inference. I can't see any aspects of unionization of teachers that tends to increase teacher quality. And I can see an aspect of unionization that tends to decrease teacher quality. So I reason that under that system, unionized teachers as a group would likely be similar to non-unionized teachers, except at the "bottom end" where the unions would contain more poor teachers.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Union-busting ain't, and neither is deregulation.

I disagree as to public sector unions. Unions in general are a more complicated issue, and I don't say across the board that their influence is negative.

[Bricker]

Just bumping the thread to see if anyone has any update on the imminent indictment of Governor Walker.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Just bumping the thread to see if anyone has any update on the imminent indictment of Governor Walker.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

I saw nothing related to a Walker indictment. They are suffering through an all time record heat wave in Wisconsin right now and probably don't want to move fast. (hehe)

I did see this, however:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/Reco...z/-/index.html

Recount: Lehman defeats Wanggaard in senate recall

Democrats now have 17-16 advantage in Senate

Published On: Jul 02 2012 12:49:21 PM CDT Updated On: Jul 02 2012 05:57:25 PM CDT

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

I saw nothing related to a Walker indictment. They are suffering through an all time record heat wave in Wisconsin right now and probably don't want to move fast. (hehe)

I did see this, however:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/Reco...z/-/index.html

That is interesting.

And when does the Senate go into session, so that the Democrats can wield their advantage?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That is interesting.

And when does the Senate go into session, so that the Democrats can wield their advantage?

I imagine Walker's veto will just lead to gridlock.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I imagine Walker's veto will just lead to gridlock.

I imagine that the Wisconsin legislature does not have a session between now and the next election, so the Democratic "majority" will never so much as meet.

And, interestingly, my imagination conforms to the actual schedule of the Wisconsin legislature, an added bonus when using one's imagination to predict future events.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I imagine that the Wisconsin legislature does not have a session between now and the next election, so the Democratic "majority" will never so much as meet.

And, interestingly, my imagination conforms to the actual schedule of the Wisconsin legislature, an added bonus when using one's imagination to predict future events.

Ah, I assumed you were asking an intelligent question based on the thread. I didn't know you were just posting a derisive gloat that didn't mean anything.

Interesting that there isn't a session between now and election time. Is that typical for state legislatures?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I said:



You said I said:



I think I don't need to say anything else.

Well, yeah, because she's right. Those unions are made up of the employees, and one set of those employees is teachers. That's what pisses me off so much about your opinion on this matter. You vilify the unions like they are some outsiders, some demonic group that exists outside the people who make them up. You completely disregard they are real people who wind up hurting from these sorts of things. Note how teachers have the lowest salaries in Texas, another state that has already done this?

I cannot understand a worldview that both holds Christian truths to be correct but also is okay with weakening the power of poor people in favor of the rich. At least most Republican Christians I know believe this shit out of ignorance, but you apparently embrace it wholeheartedly.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So .. this thread WAS, in fact, an effort to distract attention away from Tuesday's victory?



The thing is, BigT, I don't agree with you. And you seemingly cannot understand that just because you hold a belief does not translate to everyone else in the world also holding that belief, or that belief being objectively true.

I don't know what your particular financial circumstances are, but neither you, nor your mom, are owed a particular level of income. If you were a buggy whip maker, and you had been pushing a law mandating that cars must carry a buggy whip, the defeat of that law would have been a good thing. And you would not change my mind about the wisdom of that law by announcing that because the law had failed, you and your mom faced homelessness. The reason you would face homelessness in that scenario, BigT, is that the public no longer wanted or needed buggy whips now that cars, rather than horse-drawn buggys, were the primary method of transport. And you can't sustain your buggy whip business by demanding that the state pass laws to support it on the basis of sympathy for your tenuous financial position.

So, too, here. The public sector unions have been successful with their version of buggy whip laws, and that's now changing. This is a positive thing for the states, and the economy in general. I don't take pleasure in your problems, BigT, but I do take pleasure in seeing Wisconsin voters convincingly and soundly repudiate the efforts of public sector unions.

They aren't just my beliefs. They're your beliefs, except when it comes to unions. In any other context, deliberately saying words that you know would hurt people when they have not attacked you is not something you do.

The entire point of my post is that you are going around gloating, even though you admit that it may hurt people in the short term. You are therefore gloating about other people's suffering.

Your opinion here on poor people is also inconsistent, BTW. It sounds right when you say someone isn't owed a particular income. But that belief boils down to saying that poor people deserve to be poor. It means you have no obligation to help them.

The Bible very much teaches that poor people are to have stuff to eat and a place to sleep. So the Bible itself is saying that people are owed enough income to pull it off. You claim to be a Christian, you can't discount that part because it disagrees with your political beliefs.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigT

They aren't just my beliefs. They're your beliefs, except when it comes to unions. In any other context, deliberately saying words that you know would hurt people when they have not attacked you is not something you do.

The entire point of my post is that you are going around gloating, even though you admit that it may hurt people in the short term. You are therefore gloating about other people's suffering.

Your opinion here on poor people is also inconsistent, BTW. It sounds right when you say someone isn't owed a particular income. But that belief boils down to saying that poor people deserve to be poor. It means you have no obligation to help them.

The Bible very much teaches that poor people are to have stuff to eat and a place to sleep. So the Bible itself is saying that people are owed enough income to pull it off. You claim to be a Christian, you can't discount that part because it disagrees with your political beliefs.

Surely you don't want me to support legislation for a secular country such as the United States, with a strong legal requirement to separate church and state, based on my religious beliefs, do you?

I follow the command the help the less fortunate on a personal level. But i would never seek to enshrine my religious beliefs into law. That would be wrong.

Correct?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Ah, I assumed you were asking an intelligent question based on the thread. I didn't know you were just posting a derisive gloat that didn't mean anything.

Interesting that there isn't a session between now and election time. Is that typical for state legislatures?

It wasn't a meaningless gloat. It was very meaningful: the supposed Democratic advantage is nothing, because the legislature won't meet.

Well, that's not true. The advantage denies the Governor the possibility of calling a special session.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

It wasn't a meaningless gloat. It was very meaningful: the supposed Democratic advantage is nothing, because the legislature won't meet.

Well, that's not true. The advantage denies the Governor the possibility of calling a special session.

I called it a derisive gloat without meaning. I meant meaning as to the thread, that it was just a partisan dig.

[BrainGlutton]

There's a website about the Walker investigation, but no new news stories appear to have been added to it since May 30.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Surely you don't want me to support legislation for a secular country such as the United States, with a strong legal requirement to separate church and state, based on my religious beliefs, do you?

I follow the command the help the less fortunate on a personal level. But i would never seek to enshrine my religious beliefs into law. That would be wrong.

Correct?

Your character is so incredibly lacking that you feel the only justification for helping the less fortunate is religious? That's what you're saying?

I'm agnostic, and I believe in helping the poor because the poor shouldn't be made to needlessly suffer.

I'm not defective enough to lack basic human compassion.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Your character is so incredibly lacking that you feel the only justification for helping the less fortunate is religious? That's what you're saying?

I'm agnostic, and I believe in helping the poor because the poor shouldn't be made to needlessly suffer.

I'm not defective enough to lack basic human compassion.

Leaving aside the insult to my character, my post was in response to this language:

Originally Posted by BigT

The Bible very much teaches that poor people are to have stuff to eat and a place to sleep. So the Bible itself is saying that people are owed enough income to pull it off. You claim to be a Christian, you can't discount that part because it disagrees with your political beliefs.

It's been a reasonably consistent view here at the SDMB that religiously-based legislation is disfavored. My response repeated that view.

Are you endorsing BigT's rationale?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Your character is so incredibly lacking . . .

This is not The BBQ Pit and you are treading on thin ice with your insistence on making personal slurs against your debate opponents.

Stop it now.

[ /Moderating ]

[F. U. Shakespeare]

This is terribly sexist of me, but her name (assuming it were pronounced as it's spelled), voice and appearance add up to a Marx Brothers character come to life:

"Miss Cleavage, send in the next client!"

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Leaving aside the insult to my character, my post was in response to this language:



It's been a reasonably consistent view here at the SDMB that religiously-based legislation is disfavored. My response repeated that view.

Are you endorsing BigT's rationale?

Originally Posted by tomndebb

This is not The BBQ Pit and you are treading on thin ice with your insistence on making personal slurs against your debate opponents.

Stop it now.

[ /Moderating ]

My "debating opponent" is not debating in good faith. I understand the rules, and I understand the necessity of what you said, but tell me you can't see the false dilemma he posts? It's coy and condescending. Obvious and insulting as the Great Wall is long. I fear this post my cross such a line, but it needs said.

Bricker, as an alleged lawyer, ought to know laws are not religious persecution if they reflect a genuine interest in society. I'm sure if someone asked him if murder should be illegal he wouldn't go "no, because murder being wrong is a religious belief of mine". I'm sure he'd find a compelling secular interest in murder being illegal. All he has to do is see a compelling secular interest in the poor not being shit all over, and left to suffer. He, according to his religious claims, believes mistreating the vulnerable is shitting all over his god. If there's a compelling secular interest, he ought to jump at that.

He does not see such interest, or more accurately, sees a lame gotcha attempt using a false dilemma. I find this debating style maddening, and tiring. Like debating creationists, AWG deniers, and "scientific" bigots.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

My "debating opponent" is not debating in good faith.

Oh, piffle. None of this discussion has been based on actually imposing poverty or hunger on poor people. There is a difference of opinion regarding the ways and extents to which people should be permitted to seek fair employment situations. The bunch of you differ on what should be permitted and why.

However, you do not get to define Bricker's postion and then accuse him of not arguing in good faith when he does not choose to follow your script for him. He gets to choose his own arguments and you get to criticize those arguments. That is it.

[ /Moderating ]

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

My "debating opponent" is not debating in good faith. I understand the rules, and I understand the necessity of what you said, but tell me you can't see the false dilemma he posts? It's coy and condescending. Obvious and insulting as the Great Wall is long. I fear this post my cross such a line, but it needs said.

Bricker, as an alleged lawyer, ought to know laws are not religious persecution if they reflect a genuine interest in society. I'm sure if someone asked him if murder should be illegal he wouldn't go "no, because murder being wrong is a religious belief of mine". I'm sure he'd find a compelling secular interest in murder being illegal. All he has to do is see a compelling secular interest in the poor not being shit all over, and left to suffer. He, according to his religious claims, believes mistreating the vulnerable is shitting all over his god. If there's a compelling secular interest, he ought to jump at that.

He does not see such interest, or more accurately, sees a lame gotcha attempt using a false dilemma. I find this debating style maddening, and tiring. Like debating creationists, AWG deniers, and "scientific" bigots.

Nonsense. I don't have to craft my opponent's arguments for him. I responded to a claim that I should follow a certain social policy because the Bible encourages it. I responded that Bible commands are not a valid basis for laws in this country.

You seemingly want me to imagine a corresponding secular interest, accept that interest uncritically, and then accept that this interest is an equally valid basis for the proposed policy.

Um... no.

If you, or anyone else, feels there's some compelling secular reason to enact some policy, trot it out and I'll consider it. But it's not bad faith to fail to be convinced by arguments that haven't been made under the crazy theory that I should invent those arguments and then be convinced by them.

[gamerunknown]

Compelling secular reason to ensure the poor in a country have enough to eat and a place to sleep?

In order to properly afford them their constitutionally protected rights (to assemble, speak, etc.), the state should ensure the people should remain alive. There's a pretty good correlation between not eating and dying. Also, there's justification in the declaration of independence: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Compelling secular reason to ensure the poor in a country have enough to eat and a place to sleep?

In order to properly afford them their constitutionally protected rights (to assemble, speak, etc.), the state should ensure the people should remain alive. There's a pretty good correlation between not eating and dying. Also, there's justification in the declaration of independence: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Sorry, but I don't find that compelling.

First as to the Declaration, it is an aspirational document, and not a source of substantive law.

The Constitution's guarantees of assembly and speech do, in fact, require that one is alive to exercise them. But that does not require that the government take positive steps to ensure that. The Constitution commands that the government not interfere with the right to assemble and to speak freely -- it does not impose a duty to help people assemble or speak freely.

The theory you advance was shot down rather convincingly in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 US 189 (1989). As the Court explained:

But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text.

[gamerunknown]

General welfare clause then.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

General welfare clause then.

No, for the reasons laid out in US v Butler.

[gamerunknown]

I found this in wiki:

Originally Posted by Court

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

It seems their dissent was based not on the ability of Congress to tax and appropriate for the general welfare as opposed to enumerated clauses, but that this specific method was unconstitutional. Perhaps there's another precedent to reinforce your view?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I found this in wiki:

It seems their dissent was based not on the ability of Congress to tax and appropriate for the general welfare as opposed to enumerated clauses, but that this specific method was unconstitutional. Perhaps there's another precedent to reinforce your view?

No.

From the opinion itself:

The Government concedes that the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" qualifies the power "to lay and collect taxes." The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted. Mr. Justice Story points out that if it were adopted "it is obvious that under color of the generality of the words, to `provide for the common defence and general welfare,' the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers."[11] The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.

The text you quoted comes from a passage in which the Court summarizes other views, views which ultimately were not upheld. Here is your text, with the full context shown.

Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never [before] found it necessary to decide which is the true construction.

Apologies for the late replay. I composed this a long time ago, never hit "Submit" and never closed the tab. Just found it today.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I composed this a long time ago, never hit "Submit" and never closed the tab.

Do you not switch off your PC?

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

[BigAppleBucky]

The Milwaukee J-S had a brief piece today. It says that the investigation has moved up from the Milwaukee County level to the state level.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...166327206.html

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I presented my argument by inference. I can't see any aspects of unionization of teachers that tends to increase teacher quality. And I can see an aspect of unionization that tends to decrease teacher quality. So I reason that under that system, unionized teachers as a group would likely be similar to non-unionized teachers, except at the "bottom end" where the unions would contain more poor teachers.

As a non-unionized teacher in a union-busting state who got to spend the summer hanging out with some teachers from unionized states, lemme talk about some stuff.

Working conditions.

Around here, we're not unionized. We're not paid very well. We're required to put in as much overtime as the principal asks for. We have no protection from a vindictive administration. The district can make unilateral decisions about our working conditions (e.g., extending the school day, removing planning time, transforming work days into student contact days, expanding class sizes, removing assistants, etc.) without any teacher input.

Whine whine whine, sure. But your argument was from inference, so here's my argument from inference: better working conditions tend to attract more qualified employees. Unions provide better working conditions. Therefore unionized districts tend to attract more qualified employees.

And although it's just correlation, not causation, we may want to look at the correlation between unionized districts and educational achievement. I'm too tired to look the stats up now, but IIRC, the correlation is significant.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Do you not switch off your PC?

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

Normally, yes, I do shut off my PC. But I composed that reply while RDP'd into my home domain controller, which always stays on.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

Yes, they are constitutional, but not constitutionally required.