View Poll Results: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 7.55%
  • no

    49 92.45%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88

Thread: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Both instances demonstrate the problem with judicial activism. You can simply read into the amendments anything that you can imagine might exist in the so-called shadows eminating from those amendments.
    I see your point about divining things from the penumbras of Amendments, but I do not agree that rights must be explicitly or even indirectly referenced in the Constitution in order for them to exist. As I said...

    "I feel, however, that the penumbras of other Amendments are unnecessary and that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient in and of itself for the allocation of implicit rights."

    The Ninth Amendment is the explicit grant of implicit rights. Implicit rights are afforded so as to cover a wide range of obscure and abstract practices. No where in the Constitution - penumbras or otherwise - could one divine a right to construct hot-dog statues in your back yard, but that doesn't mean the government can forbid said practice on such as basis as I have outlined as it would be unconstitutional.

    Case in point...the right to marital privacy established in Griswold has evolved a right to homoexual sodomy in Lawrence and evolved further to a right to gay marriage (MA Supreme Court). Somewhere, the marital part was just abandoned in order to satisfy the personal policy preferences of a majority of judges ruling on a specific question.
    It seems your issue with the right to privacy isn't necessarily the concept itself but rather its improper utilization. Just because the concept is abused or distorted by the judiciary does not mean the concept itself is invalid. Individuals do have a right to privacy, how far that right extends is another matter entirely.

  2. #72
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Both instances demonstrate the problem with judicial activism. You can simply read into the amendments anything that you can imagine might exist in the so-called shadows eminating from those amendments.

    Case in point...the right to marital privacy established in Griswold has evolved a right to homoexual sodomy in Lawrence and evolved further to a right to gay marriage (MA Supreme Court). Somewhere, the marital part was just abandoned in order to satisfy the personal policy preferences of a majority of judges ruling on a specific question.
    What you don't mention is that government sanction of marriage is an invasion of privacy in itself. It should have been outlawed long ago and we wouldn't have the issues we are dealing with now.
    From the ashes.

  3. #73
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I see your point about divining things from the penumbras of Amendments, but I do not agree that rights must be explicitly or even indirectly referenced in the Constitution in order for them to exist. As I said...

    "I feel, however, that the penumbras of other Amendments are unnecessary and that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient in and of itself for the allocation of implicit rights."

    The Ninth Amendment is the explicit grant of implicit rights. Implicit rights are afforded so as to cover a wide range of obscure and abstract practices. No where in the Constitution - penumbras or otherwise - could one divine a right to construct hot-dog statues in your back yard, but that doesn't mean the government can forbid said practice on such as basis as I have outlined as it would be unconstitutional.
    I agree. It is or (should be) interpreted that a person has a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.
    From the ashes.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    So, Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with you entirely. This is a great, succinct, explanation of how our Rights are understood.

    However, I am just curious as to what clause in the Constitution explicitly provides for exceptions to our explicitly stated rights. Do you happen to know of one? For example, this right that you mention, the 'right to personal safety': that right is not mentioned in the Constitution, is it? Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that we have a right to personal safety, but I am just wondering how this right is found within the Constitution.

    Now, perhaps there are rights that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention that it nevertheless recognizes. I just would like to hear your take on that.
    While the Constitution itself restrains only the government, theoretically leaving private individuals to assault on another without limit, we can observe the rights which the Constitution presumes to exist and further demonstrate how these rights are protected from infringement by private individuals.

    While it is entirely appropriate to look to the Constitution when determining which rights it presumes to exist, we can not look to the Constitution for a direct restraint imposed on a private individual; Restraining private individuals was not the Constitutionís function.

    While American culture views the right of personal safety through the Christian notion of Natural Law, generally speaking many different societies world-wide hold that the right of personal safety exists in every individual inherently. That is to say that the right of personal safety is not believed to be an external entity conferred, but an internal attribute expressed.

    If the right of personal safety is observed as internal, then the right of personal safety is not something the Constitution would grant, but something the Constitution would presume to already exist and further move to protect.

    In its restraint of the government, we can observe the Constitution presuming the right to personal safety existing in the following examples:

    LII: Constitution
    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    LII: Constitution
    Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
    Amendment II
    LII: Constitution
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    Please note that the 2nd amendment does not establish a right to bear arms.
    The second amendment presumes that the right to keep and bear arms exists and then moves to prevent the government from infringing upon it. Nowhere in the Constitution is this right generated, yet it exists.

    Amendment IV
    LII: Constitution
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Here again we see that the Constitution presumes that the right to be secure in your person exists as it moves to restrain government from infringing upon it, yet nowhere in the Constitution is this right generated. Various codified laws further move to protect your right to be secure in your person from private individuals, and like the Constitution, these codified laws do not generate the right, but presume it already exists.


    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ction_245.html

    United States Code
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

    U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
    Section 245. Federally protected activities


    (b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force
    or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes
    with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with
    -....

    (2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national
    origin and because he is or has been
    -....

    (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite
    thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or
    subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or
    advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or
    employment agency
    ;....

    ...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one
    year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed
    in violation of this section or if such acts include the use,
    attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives,
    or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more
    than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
    committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
    kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an
    attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years
    or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
    .
    This code demonstrates a pre-existing right observed; that one has the right to apply for or enjoy the employment of a private individual free from threats of force or actual attempts of violence.

    I hope these are sufficient examples. Please let me know how you would like to discuss this further.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-07-09 at 09:40 PM.

  5. #75
    Educator Onion Eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Last Seen
    07-13-16 @ 06:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    753

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    No such right exists.

    "At will" employment has its definitions and limits, and political lean is not grounds to terminate.
    For once, I agree with Jerry, though, I promise, this is the only time!

    The OP asked what "should" be the law, which is a speculative question. However, chevydriver1123 stated as a matter of fact, "They [private businesses] have every legal right to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reason."

    As a matter of fact, that is not true under current law.

    Looking at your District Manager the wrong way is insubordination and one can be fired for that. Of course, if the employee sues, it would help the company's case considerably if there were witnesses to the confrontation.

    But your voting record and the gender of your mate are private matters. As the owner of a small business, I can tell you that firing someone for either of those things is really not going to work. He or she will just sue you and you will wind up having to pay their back wages.

    Whether this should or should not be the case is a seperate issue. I'm just telling you what the law is.
    Is the following quote reckless in the extreme? Then read my 2008 paper about monetary theory:
    http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/in...e_collapse.php
    Quote Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum View Post
    No tax raises needed, just have the federal government spend the money into existence.

  6. #76
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 04:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I see your point about divining things from the penumbras of Amendments, but I do not agree that rights must be explicitly or even indirectly referenced in the Constitution in order for them to exist. As I said...
    If there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from infringment?

    I don't think that the court can without engaging in a constitutionally dangerous game of peering into the shadows eminating from the first eight amendments.

    The court's divination of a privacy right didn't need the Ninth as a basis for such a right. The Griswold Court found such a right from the first eight rendering the 9th unnecessary. Hence, if you cannot find a right in the first eight, the ninth doesn't all-of-a-sudden make it appear.

    It seems your issue with the right to privacy isn't necessarily the concept itself but rather its improper utilization. Just because the concept is abused or distorted by the judiciary does not mean the concept itself is invalid. Individuals do have a right to privacy, how far that right extends is another matter entirely.
    Not really. My issue involves the divination of such a right from the first eight amendments. This is a reflection of the danger I just noted above. Hence, my problem ain't the abuse of such a right by the Courts, but the abuse of the Court's power to divine such a right in the first place.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    If there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from infringment?
    Here's an example:
    a-68-05.doc.html
    2. In attempting to discern the substantive rights that are "fundamental" under Article I, Paragraph 1, of the State Constitution, the Court has followed the general standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in construing the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    • First, the asserted fundamental liberty interest must be clearly identified. In this case, the identified right is the right of same-sex couples to marry.
    • Second, the liberty interest in same-sex marriage must be objectively and deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State
    • (pp. 21-25).
    While this thread is not about same-sex marriage nor an individual state law, the NJSC used the same standard that SCOTUS uses today and is a good example of how fundamental rights per-se are identified for protection.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-08-09 at 01:57 PM.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    While the Constitution itself restrains only the government, theoretically leaving private individuals to assault on another without limit, we can observe the rights which the Constitution presumes to exist and further demonstrate how these rights are protected from infringement by private individuals.

    While it is entirely appropriate to look to the Constitution when determining which rights it presumes to exist, we can not look to the Constitution for a direct restraint imposed on a private individual; Restraining private individuals was not the Constitutionís function.

    While American culture views the right of personal safety through the Christian notion of Natural Law, generally speaking many different societies world-wide hold that the right of personal safety exists in every individual inherently. That is to say that the right of personal safety is not believed to be an external entity conferred, but an internal attribute expressed.

    If the right of personal safety is observed as internal, then the right of personal safety is not something the Constitution would grant, but something the Constitution would presume to already exist and further move to protect.

    In its restraint of the government, we can observe the Constitution presuming the right to personal safety existing in the following examples:







    Please note that the 2nd amendment does not establish a right to bear arms.
    The second amendment presumes that the right to keep and bear arms exists and then moves to prevent the government from infringing upon it. Nowhere in the Constitution is this right generated, yet it exists.



    Here again we see that the Constitution presumes that the right to be secure in your person exists as it moves to restrain government from infringing upon it, yet nowhere in the Constitution is this right generated. Various codified laws further move to protect your right to be secure in your person from private individuals, and like the Constitution, these codified laws do not generate the right, but presume it already exists.




    This code demonstrates a pre-existing right observed; that one has the right to apply for or enjoy the employment of a private individual free from threats of force or actual attempts of violence.

    I hope these are sufficient examples. Please let me know how you would like to discuss this further.
    Excellent post. Thank you for answering me with such a well thought out post. I have read the Constitution, of course, many times. I had long ago concluded that it recognizes that rights exist for which it does not make specific mention. You have provided me with specific places to refer to when I need to think about that fact. Places I had not pieced together with that notion. Sometime I learn things here, and I appreciate it when I do.

    People like to say that the Constitution grants rights, a notion I find abhorent. As if people under the thumb of authoritarian or worse regimes don't have many of the same rights as we do, even if their government doesn't recognize them.

    However, none of what you or I have said in any way indicates that the Constitution offers protection toward maintaining unmentioned rights against government intrusion. Nor have we yet seen an argument for protecting rights in ways not specifically laid out.

    Let's look at the first amendment. It springs from the right of the individual to be free in their conscience, but some could argue that it protects that right only in specific ways and in no other ways. But, if that is true, and the Constitution makes no specific exception to the ways it protects the right, then for consistency's sake, you would have to conclude that there are no exceptions, and that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is Constitutionally protected speech.

    This is what I was saying before, and your response was to provide quotes from the Constitution where the right to personal safety was mentioned, even perhaps afforded certain protections against government intrusion in specific ways. But no where does it explicitly offer broad based protection of this right. Do you mean to imply that the seeming mentioning of this right by the Constitution is the basis for which an exception is found to the First Amendment? I don't want to put words in your mouth. It is simply the logical and natural reading of what you put out there given the context of this thread and my request for information.

    Of course, it seems preposterous to think that the First Amendment doesn't have an exception in the case of a person yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre, and I agree that there is one. I certainly don't think that the Constitution needed to be amended in order to provide for this exception.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    If there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from infringment?

    I don't think that the court can without engaging in a constitutionally dangerous game of peering into the shadows eminating from the first eight amendments.

    The court's divination of a privacy right didn't need the Ninth as a basis for such a right. The Griswold Court found such a right from the first eight rendering the 9th unnecessary. Hence, if you cannot find a right in the first eight, the ninth doesn't all-of-a-sudden make it appear.

    Not really. My issue involves the divination of such a right from the first eight amendments. This is a reflection of the danger I just noted above. Hence, my problem ain't the abuse of such a right by the Courts, but the abuse of the Court's power to divine such a right in the first place.
    Philosophically speaking, all rights are fundamental, legally speaking, implicit rights are fundamental because they are afforded their own Amendment in the US Constitution. Just because the Founding Fathers couldn't physically list every other right retained by the people doesn't mean they aren't afforded the same level of protection as those that were listed.

    The only reason these Justices saw fit to "divine" a right to privacy in the first eight Amendments is because they had to remain consistent with the judiciary's historical ignorance of the Ninth. Such divination was redundant and unnecessary because the Ninth Amendment already protected unenumerated rights.

    Had they cited the Ninth Amendment as rationale for their decision they would have to explain why all the other Supreme Courts didn't simply cite the Ninth Amendment when dealing with slavery or women's suffrage. Did the Courts really need to create separate Amendments for slavery and women's suffrage? Is there anything in the language of the original Constitution that suggests slavery and denying women the right to vote are morally or legally acceptable practices?

    The judiciary has been stomping over our rights and mangling the Constitution ever since the moment the ink dried on the parchment. If a Court were to reference the Ninth Amendment as rationale for implicit rights it would force them to stop withholding all the other rights we retain.

    "Oh no! The Courts have recognized the Ninth Amendment." Said the Washington fat-cat. "Now we might have to let them control their children's education, run their businesses without government interference, and, I shudder to think...do drugs! Oh, the agony! Woe is me! My reign of terror is over!"

    The only change, I think, that actually needed to be made to the Constitution (as it concerned rights) was the Fourteenth Amendment. The States had to be held to the same standard of recognizing rights as the Federal government. Things like the Three-Fifths compromise speak for themselves, they were blatantly hypocritical. The other "rights recognizing" Amendments are like tapestries on a castle wall; they don't have any real purpose, but they look nice.

  10. #80
    Guru
    FallingPianos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,341

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    no.

    not because of any belief that firing the employee would violate his/her rights, but because I think it would severely undermine the integrity of our elections if employers could coerce people into voting certain ways.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •