# Michigan Contemplates Becoming Right-To-Work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673 "2012-12-11T02:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/361 "2012-12-21T20:56:33Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sorry, I should have been more specific. You seem to be saying that it is unethical for a legislature to pass a law that does not enjoy popular support, even if the law is lawfully enacted and Constitutional. Correct?.. Nope. Simply pointing out that if a political party has an agenda, they should run on it, they should offer it openly, and state their intentions clearly. And if part of that agenda is to pass laws that will give an advantage to one political party, it is dishonest in the extreme to withhold that fact until they can throw a surprise party in a lame duck session. The appropriations rider, the neat legal trick that means the law cannot be brought to a referendum, gives the game away. I trust you can see that this bears little resemblance to your paraphrase of my position. > [@](#): > > …If so, does it follow that a law that is popular, but NOT Constitutional, should be passed? Is that what “the will of the people [is] paramount, exceeding even the sacred status of legal and Constitutional” means? As I said above, and will repeat in case it eluded you, “legal and Constitutional” is a phrase much associated with friend **Bricker**. It is intended in an ironic light. I was not offering you a springboard for a discussion of theoretical politics. If you want to argue that point, you will probably need to find someone interested in it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2012, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/362 "2012-12-22T00:00:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nope. Simply pointing out that if a political party has an agenda, they should run on it, they should offer it openly, and state their intentions clearly. > > And if part of that agenda is to pass laws that will give an advantage to one political party, it is dishonest in the extreme to withhold that fact until they can throw a surprise party in a lame duck session. What if the agenda is to switch the law about a governor appointing a senator to fill a vacant seat back and forth, depending on whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican? What should the political party do then? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/363 "2012-12-22T02:03:38Z")
**Bricker,** ya got me. I’m a total hypocrite. Liar, blackguard, and despoiler of maidens. None of which changes any of the relevant facts of this matter. In the slightest. Let me know if there’s any part of that you don’t understand. I’m here to help. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/364 "2012-12-22T13:48:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nope. Simply pointing out that if a political party has an agenda, they should run on it, they should offer it openly, and state their intentions clearly. > [@elucidator](#): > > As I said above, and will repeat in case it eluded you, “legal and Constitutional” is a phrase much associated with friend Bricker. It is intended in an ironic light. I was not offering you a springboard for a discussion of theoretical politics. If you want to argue that point, you will probably need to find someone interested in it. Ok, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=18)