TCash101 v. Southeast

[TomC]

May it please the Court, I'd like to request a hearing to determine the constitutionality of section one of the the following Southeast law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a Southeast citizen and potential employee of a private business, this regional law violates this right under the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unions and labor organizations have a number of purposes, but the most common being the right of employees to organize, to unite together to collectively negotiate or bargain for wage and other agreements. This law was not made by the Senate, nor does it indicate an exception based on national interest.

To allow employers to discriminate and deny employment based on membership in an organization for the purpose of collective bargaining violates this right that we all have as Atlasians. Removing this law does not by any means give workers rights that supercede those of the employers, it would simply allow employers EDIT: employees to work together in negotiating pay and working conditions.

One's own feelings about labor unions and the right to organize has nothing to do with ruling on this matter. Based on this constitutional provision, this Southeast law violates an employee the rights he/she is guaranteed. If the populace dislikes this constitutional provision, there are certainly ways to amend it out. But until then, the Liberty of Contract Initiative is unconstitutional, and I request that the court void this regional law, as it may under the powers given to it in Article III.

[Emsworth]

The case is accepted for consideration.

I would like to ask the plaintiff whether the federal Bill of Rights applies to the regions in the first place. In the United States, the Bill of Rights was originally binding only upon the federal government. It took the Fourteenth Amendment to make it binding upon the states. Is there any language in the Constitution that parallels the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment? Or, is there some reason for which this analogy between the American and the Atlasian constitutions is invalid?

[TomC]

The case is accepted for consideration.

I would like to ask the plaintiff whether the federal Bill of Rights applies to the regions in the first place. In the United States, the Bill of Rights was originally binding only upon the federal government. It took the Fourteenth Amendment to make it binding upon the states. Is there any language in the Constitution that parallels the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment? Or, is there some reason for which this analogy between the American and the Atlasian constitutions is invalid?

I don’t want to get too confused by comparing the Atlasian and U.S. Constitutions because my case is based in the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia.

Our Constitution says the Regions may govern themselves as they see fit, but may not make laws which violate the rights and powers enumerated in the constitution. ("Regions are autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves and their elections as they wish, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution." IV, 3, 1)

Just as the Constitution may grant powers or rights to Senators, Presidents, and Justices, it may grant powers to citizens or people. It has done this in article VI, clause 10. The Southeastern government cannot take this power or right away just as it cannot: fire a Senator, deregister an Atlasian from the voter rolls, or nullify federal law about marriage (Statesrights vs. Atlasia), The Southeast is not allowed to deny this right- only the Atlasian Senate may do that and only then “on the grounds of vital national interest.”

Our constitution specifically grants the Supreme Court the authority to void regional laws when these laws specifically contradict the Constitution. The  two laws in question do contradict: an employees’ right to organize with other workers, an employer’s (regional) “right” to deny a person the right to organize with other workers. There is no federal law that grants an employer the right to deny what is in Article VI, clause 10; the federal law supercedes the regional law.

So, the answer to your question is that it can be found in several places. Article IV says the Regional governments may not govern themselves in a manner that contradicts the Constitution, Article III grants the Court the authority to void these laws that contradict the Constitution. Also, Article VI, clause 1 says: "No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  Regional government is certainly an agency of government and I am asking for the Court to void that regional law (or at least section 1) so that I may enjoy the right that Atlasians in other regions hold.

[TomC]

The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." that does not limit the states from making laws denying enumerated federal rights. Article VI of the Constitution R of A starts with the phrase "No agency of government shall deprive any person..." The latter would have to include regional- there's no explicit qualifier to think otherwise. This statement in Article VI  parallels Amendment 14, the latter part of section 1.

Also, Article IV section 4 (US) provides states a Republican form of government, but it does not explicitly forbid the states from contradicting the Constitution, as ours does in Article IV, with the phrase "except where otherwise provided in this Constitution."

Third, in Article III (US), the Supreme Court is not given the explicit power to void regional laws for contradicting the Constitution, as the Atlasian Constitution does.

Also, the 14th amendment was needed to deal with several problems: first the precedent set by the Dred Scott case and, I believe, parts of Article IV including section 1 and 2 which says states have to honor the public acts of other states (I don't believe regions have that right in Atlasia).

[TomC]

Who intends to argue this case on behalf of the Southeast? Governor Harry? I have no problem if John Dibble wishes to do so. But the author is a Justice and I'd prefer the same person not submit testimony as to the intent or interpretation of the Liberty of Contract Initiative and write the Opinion of the Case. I waited until I was not a justice to submit this.

[Emsworth]

I would like to ask a further question:

What is the plaintiff's view on the distinction between private and governmental actions? For example, it is unconstitutional for the government to prevent someone from bearing arms. But it is also unconstitutional for someone to ban firearms on his private property?

[Sam Spade]

It would make the most sense if Dibble was arguing it, frankly.

[TomC]

It would make the most sense if Dibble was arguing it, frankly.

No, it would make the most sense for the governor to defend the policies of his government, and the magistrate to interpret the law, but if the governor wishes to get Dibble to do it, I'm fine with that.

[TomC]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the question/analogy about gun ownership on private property is very close to what I am asserting here. However, I will say this: the government gives people the freedoms of speech and assembly. It is the combination of these rights, which I believe is asserted in Article VI section 10, and this right is given to an employee.

For example, during working hours and at the job site, if an employer wishes to tell his employees they cannot assemble at the water cooler and talk about what a jerk he is, the employers may do that- and may fire them if they do not comply. But what they do after work and on property outside of the employer is their business. How can an employer prohibit coworkers from meeting after work somewhere else? How can an employer prohibit these employees from discussing the question: "How can we get the boss to give us a longer lunch or a quarter more an hour?" And that is all the right in Article VI clause 10 asserts: coworkers can meet and talk about how to impact the compensation and conditions of employment.

So, to briefly touch on your analogy more directly, maybe a person can say "You can't bring a gun on my property." And an employer can say "You can't all gather to discuss working conditions while at work." But similarly, the property owner can't tell a person he may not have a gun after he leaves his private property, and an employer cannot dictate the speech and assembly of those in his employment when they are not "on the job."

[Emsworth]

But similarly, the property owner can't tell a person he may not have a gun after he leaves his private property, and an employer cannot dictate the speech and assembly of those in his employment when they are not "on the job."

A private property owner can say to someone, "If you have a gun anywhere, then I will not allow you on my property ever again." Why can't the employer, similarly, say, "If you participate in a union, then I will never hire you?" The two situations appear to be analagous. In the one case, someone is being excluded from a piece of property; in the other, he is being excluded from a company.

[TomC]

And as far as the business being property, I don't see that the Constitution gives business owners unlimited freedoms with that property. True, a person's property or business cannot be taken away without due process of law, but neither upholding Article VI, section 10 or voiding the Liberty of Contract Initiative takes property away from any owner.

Further, Article VI, clause 10 does not begin "No agency of government shall..." It isn't a clause limiting the govenment, it is a clause granting a right to a person in employment: "Persons in employment shall have the right..." The Liberty of Contract initiative denies that right and should be stricken.

[TomC]

But similarly, the property owner can't tell a person he may not have a gun after he leaves his private property, and an employer cannot dictate the speech and assembly of those in his employment when they are not "on the job."

A private property owner can say to someone, "If you have a gun anywhere, then I will not allow you on my property ever again."

Where is this right given?

[Emsworth]

Where is this right given?

As you know, a right need not be explicitly mentioned in order to be protected. The enumeration of certain rights must not be construed as a denial or disparagement of others.

But are you arguing that, if an individual refuses to admit another person onto his property on the grounds that the latter person has previously owned a gun, then the Constitution has been violated?

[TomC]

Where is this right given?

As you know, a right need not be explicitly mentioned in order to be protected. The enumeration of certain rights must not be construed as a denial or disparagement of others.

Correct, but Article VI section 10 explicitly gives every employee the right to gather with coworkers for the purpose of entering into collective bargaining.

But are you arguing that, if an individual refuses to admit another person onto his property on the grounds that the latter person has previously owned a gun, then the Constitution has been violated?

Well, as I said, I don't believe that gun ownership has much to do with this and I'd prefer that we look to any Atlasian precedent than hypothetical analogies; I don't believe the analogy is fair to the argument I'm making, for one reason I believe you are using two different definitions of property. If you are referring to the same use of the word property in Art VI, I poiint out the word "liberty" also exists there, and is followed in the same clause by the guarantee of equal protection of the law. What Article VI, section 10 grants is a liberty- and it is given to the employee within Atlasia.

What I am arguing is that, due to an explicit right in the Constitution, an employer may not discriminate based on the employee's membership in a group that's purpose is to assemble and speak with other employees of that private business. Article VI, clause 10 does not limit itself to persons in public employment.

Are you saying that there is already an unwritten federal right that business owners have to deny individuals membership in a group, despite employees explicitly having the right to do so? If so, why was it necessary to enumerate a regional right in this manner? If not, how can this regional law possibly supercede the federal one?

If there is an explicit right of employees and an implied right of employers in conflict, how can one possibly argue that the implied one supercedes the explicit one?

Perhaps in Atlasia we need to enumerate employers rights better, just as we may need to enumerate a few powers of the President; however, currently, this stated employee right has more authority than a regional law and an unstated employeer right.

Do the other Justices have any comments or questions?

[TomC]

Further, I want to assert that Article VI section 10 places NO burden on the employer to heed any requests of these union employees and voiding the Liberty of Contrct Initiative doesn't change that. Also, neither the Article nor removal of the initiative, requires in ANY way, that an employee has to join a union- this does nothing to the right to work principle.

[7,052,770]

I agree with TCash and will not argue in favor of the SE government, nor will I appoint anyone to do so.

[John Dibble]

Members of the Supreme Court, I shall be representing the Southeastern region for this case. I'll try to keep my arguments short.

The Constitution asserts that employees have a right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining. Nobody is attempting to deny this, for such a right is a natural extension of the right to peaceably assemble. However, the gaurantee of this right does not mean that employers must maintain employees should they decide to unionize, rather the Constitution gaurantees this right so that the government may not ban unions or other employee organizations when. The Liberty of Contract initiative does not deny the right of employees to unionize, it only recognizes the right of the employer to hire and fire employees based on his or her willingness to deal with unions.

For instance, if the employees in a non-union shop decided their current contracts were unfair, there is no force of law stopping them from exercising their right to unionize and collectively bargain with their employer. Do they risk angering their employer and possibly losing their jobs for collectively bargaining? Certainly so, but such risk is inherent in the nature of collective bargaining. The Constitution rightfully recognizes the employees' right to take those risks, not force employers to bear a shop of union employees they do not wish to bear. The Liberty of Contract initiative only serves to recognize the employer's rights when dealing with union employees.

This is analogous to the risks inherent in exercising one's right to free speech. Should I be invited into another man's home, I run the risk of being asked to leave if I say something that offends him. My right to speak my mind is not denied by the man, but he does not have to deal with speech he does not want to hear on his own property.

Since the Liberty of Contract initiative does not forbid, deny, or in any way prevent employees from exercising their right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining the law is constitutional.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it helps I think I was somewhat responsible for getting that wee thing into the Constitution.