Opinion in TCash101 v. Southeast

[The Dowager Mod]

Dissenting opinion

According to Article VI section 10: Persons in employment shall have the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining, with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest.

According to the Southeast law: It shall be lawful for any private business to deny an individual employment on the basis of membership or non-membership in a union or other labor organization.

Since these two laws are contradictory and Federal law takes precedent, The Southeast law should be considered null and void.

The Southeast law allows businesses to discriminate against potential employees if they are or wish to be members of a union, which would seem to violate Aticle VI section 10.

[The Dowager Mod]

I agree with the Court's judgement. The Constitution does not require private entities to be Union-neutral, it requires the government to allow them to exist (and on the other hand could not force Union membership on people).

Justice Texasgurl's dissent is lacklustre and fails to provide any justification for applying the Clause 10 to private entities, whereas the majority provides plenty of justification for not applying it.

It was erroneously suggested by TCash at argument that for the Court to rule as they have done, they would have to recognise a federal right of employers to fire unionised employees. As we can see, the Court makes no such assertion, and frankly I do not believe it could.

The Constitution does not insulate one from consequences of exercising your constitutional rights, it just provides that you have the rights, but you must live with the consequences.

Guess it's a good thing i do not care what you think then.

[The Dowager Mod]

Justice Texasgurl's dissent is lacklustre and fails to provide any justification for applying the Clause 10 to private entities, whereas the majority provides plenty of justification for not applying it.

Guess it's a good thing i do not care what you think then.

You might want to start caring TexasGurl - it's valid criticism, no offense intended. You state that the law and the constitution are in contradiction, but you really provide no argument as to why. The other side however provides many arguments as to why they are not in contradiction. In debate you must use arguments based on evidence and logic to prove your points, and your dissenting opinion is certainly lacking in those departments. Unless people already believe what you have to say, you won't be that convincing.

I just don't need to post two pages of legalese crap to get my point across.
And i don't need to convince Peter Bell of anything just Emsworth and Colin.