# Wisconsin's Union Bill (Act 10) is in fact constitutionally sound **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624 "2014-04-21T19:11:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/1 "2014-04-21T19:11:22Z")
A little over three years ago, in response to the passage of the “Act 10,” bill, A.K.A. the budget repair bill that removed the requirement to engage in collective bargaining with non-public safety unions from state and local government, **Snowboarder Bo** started a thread that asked, " Is it [_the bill_] constitutionally sound?" > [@Will Wisconsin's anti-union bill pass constitutional muster? Is it a good idea?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wisconsins-anti-union-bill-pass-constitutional-muster-is-it-a-good-idea/571725/1): > > [Story here](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WISCONSIN_BUDGET_UNIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-02-17-12-23-48) > The story later details that unions won’t actually be outlawed, but will face new restrictions on what they can ask for at the bargaining table, how they must conduct their internal affairs, etc. Basically, it seems to be trying to make being in a union or running a union both difficult and with no visible benefit; IMO it’s trying to make unions go away without actually banning them. Kinda like trying to keep people from using the sidewalk by saying “well you can walk there as long as you wear purple stilts and walk backwards and only make turns to the left”. Pretty soon no one is using the sidewalks because it’s a PITA and the effort vs. the reward ratio is too high. > > Anyway, I have 2 questions about this bill. > > 1. Is it constitutionally sound? It seems to me that it places a lot of difficult and burdensome restrictions on a union and it’s membership which may conflict with federal law and possibly with our right to freely associate. In the case of teachers’ unions and other government service employees unions and what they can and cannot try and secure at the bargaining table, I question whether or not that is an attempt to limit people’s right to seek redress for grievances from the government as well. I opined in an early post (#8) that it was constitutional. Since that time, the bill has been the subject of not one but two legal attacks. In _Wisconsin Education Association Council et al, v. Walker_,WEAC et al contended that the bill infringed on the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit rejected those claims in total last year. Two other unions tried a couple of different FirstAmendment and Equal Protection Clause theories. In _Laborers Local 236AFL‐CIO,etal. v. Walker_, the Seventh Circuit has disposed of those as well. For this reason, I would now contend that my 2011 view of the constitutionality of Act 10 is generally vindicated. And of course the claims of anyone from that linked thread who claimed otherwise now has a substantially higher hill to surmount if still wishing to claim a lack of constitutionality. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/2 "2014-04-21T19:20:28Z")
Is this just gloating then? Or are we to debate a new topic? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/3 "2014-04-21T19:43:09Z")
Gotta admit, Bricker, I’m not seeing a debate here but more of a sack dance. Such are unseemly in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/4 "2014-04-21T20:01:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And of course the claims of anyone from that linked thread who claimed otherwise now has a substantially higher hill to surmount if still wishing to claim a lack of constitutionality. Luckily, as far as I can see, not a single person did. You all went off on tax rants. So this is a victory dance in an empty theatre, istm. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/5 "2014-04-21T20:09:14Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Is this just gloating then? Or are we to debate a new topic? Gloating? No, not gloating. I have commented before, more than once, about the low cost of offering up predictions on the SDMB – as long as the prediction is in accord with left-wing thinking. A person who predicts a future outcome or event in a way that’s consistent with the desired left-wing result doesn’t fear negative response from the community at the time he makes the prediction. I think there’s value in following up predictions made. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/6 "2014-04-21T20:10:49Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Gotta admit, Bricker, I’m not seeing a debate here but more of a sack dance. Such are unseemly in the extreme. The other option would have been to post in the three-year-old thread, I suppose, but it seems to me that long-standing practice is to prefer posting a new thread with a link to the old one. Or are you suggesting that subject simply shouldn’t be mentioned again? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/7 "2014-04-21T20:14:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have commented before, more than once, about the low cost of offering up predictions on the SDMB – as long as the prediction is in accord with left-wing thinking. How much money do we charge you to make right wing predictions on this message board? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/8 "2014-04-21T20:29:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Gloating? > > No, not gloating. > > I have commented before, more than once, about the low cost of offering up predictions on the SDMB – as long as the prediction is in accord with left-wing thinking. A person who predicts a future outcome or event in a way that’s consistent with the desired left-wing result doesn’t fear negative response from the community at the time he makes the prediction. > > I think there’s value in following up predictions made. So, you’re not gloating, just coming in to say that you were right. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/9 "2014-04-21T20:36:06Z")
Since you started this thread to point out that you were right, and since I don’t recall you ever posting a thread of this nature before, may we assume…? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/10 "2014-04-21T20:52:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Since you started this thread to point out that you were right, and since I don’t recall you ever posting a thread of this nature before, may we assume…? > > 😃 You may assume either your memory is faulty, or this is the first time I’ve been right. I’ve posted several “I was wrong,” threads before. The only ones I remember starting that were intended to crow about being right were just that: not sober updates to predictions, but happy dance threads about election results. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/11 "2014-04-21T22:06:56Z")
If there’s anything that would warm the cockles of a right winger’s heart, it’s the notion that public employees are getting the shaft and there’s nothing they can do about it. So it’s constitutional. So will the repeal, which will happen when Walker and his Republican co-thugs get voted out in November. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/12 "2014-04-21T22:27:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The other option would have been to post in the three-year-old thread, I suppose, but it seems to me that long-standing practice is to prefer posting a new thread with a link to the old one. > > Or are you suggesting that subject simply shouldn’t be mentioned again? I suggest no such thing. But your later posting that you wished to reopen the debate has nothing to do with your OP. Given that, your justification in your post of 4:09 seems more to do with ex post facto providing a debate. I encourage debate - it’s in the forum title, after all - but you didn’t present one. In the future, perhaps it would be better if you did. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/13 "2014-04-21T22:30:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > If there’s anything that would warm the cockles of a right winger’s heart, it’s the notion that public employees are getting the shaft and there’s nothing they can do about it. So it’s constitutional. So will the repeal, which will happen **when Walker and his Republican co-thugs get voted out in November**. Is that a prediction or a wish? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/14 "2014-04-21T22:56:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Is that a prediction or a wish? I predict that Walker loses in November. I wish that he and Christie wind up in orange jumpsuits. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/15 "2014-04-21T22:59:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I predict that Walker loses in November. I wish that he and Christie wind up in orange jumpsuits. Bookmarked. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/16 "2014-04-21T23:01:26Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Bookmarked. I anxiously await your accolades. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/17 "2014-04-21T23:39:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The other option would have been to post in the three-year-old thread, I suppose, but it seems to me that long-standing practice is to prefer posting a new thread with a link to the old one. > > Or are you suggesting that subject simply shouldn’t be mentioned again? The other option? There are plenty of other options: Pit thread, for instance. Or, nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/18 "2014-04-21T23:50:47Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I suggest no such thing. But your later posting that you wished to reopen the debate has nothing to do with your OP. Given that, your justification in your post of 4:09 seems more to do with ex post facto providing a debate. I encourage debate - it’s in the forum title, after all - but you didn’t present one. In the future, perhaps it would be better if you did. Jonathan, we’ve never required a formal statement of the proposition to be defended or rebutted before, have we? Here is the relevant section of my OP that I contend identified a claim for debate: > [@Bricker](#): > > For this reason, I would now contend that my 2011 view of the constitutionality of Act 10 is generally vindicated. > > And of course the claims of anyone from that linked thread who claimed otherwise now has a substantially higher hill to surmount if still wishing to claim a lack of constitutionality. Are you really saying that these words do not present a debatable proposition? The Seventh Circuit is not the Supreme Court. There are people here who take the position that even a Supreme Court ruling does not close the question of constitutionality – witness the claims that arise every time Heller and Macdonald are discussed in the context of Second Amendment rights, or Citizen’s United and McCutcheon with regard to campaign finance. If the Supreme Court cannot settle those issues, why would the Seventh Circuit’s ruling foreclose discussion here? Please. Explain. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/19 "2014-04-21T23:58:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Jonathan, we’ve never required a formal statement of the proposition to be defended or rebutted before, have we? > > Here is the relevant section of my OP that I contend identified a claim for debate: > > Are you really saying that these words do not present a debatable proposition? The Seventh Circuit is not the Supreme Court. There are people here who take the position that even a Supreme Court ruling does not close the question of constitutionality – witness the claims that arise every time Heller and Macdonald are discussed in the context of Second Amendment rights, or Citizen’s United and McCutcheon with regard to campaign finance. If the Supreme Court cannot settle those issues, why would the Seventh Circuit’s ruling foreclose discussion here? > > Please. Explain. As I reread my own post, it occurs to me that while the proposition is not foreclosed, the relative weight of the claims has shifted quite a bit, leaving those opposed to the bill in substantially worse position. Is that the reason you’re not eager to see any debate proposition here, **Jonathan**? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624/20 "2014-04-22T00:55:02Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Gotta admit, Bricker, I’m not seeing a debate here but more of a sack dance. Such are unseemly in the extreme. That all depends on the size of the sack . . . [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsins-union-bill-act-10-is-in-fact-constitutionally-sound/686624.md?page=2)