Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn)

[Bono]

The 14th Amendment is easily the worst one. Atlasia does not need its equivalent.

I agree with you.
Plus, given that the people at the constitutional convention seemed to be on some kind of drug, the spurious "right to colective bargain" would be enforced upon ther egions.
This is nothing more than an organized labour plot against the Southeastern Right To Work laws, and if passed there will be adequate response.

[Bono]

Everything in this amendment seems perfectacly reasonable to me.  It just ensures things like the right to bear arms, or freedom of speech and the press.  I again urge the senators to pass this.  Currently the Pacific could make a law that said that no one could make fun of the Governor, else they be given the death penalty!  Or the Midwest could, say, outlaw the smiley.  the Northeast could outlaw weapons of any sort.  The Mideast could make slavery legal and the Southeast could deny someone a trial.

Not that any of this will happen, but it could!

By this logic, we should also allow the UN to intervene in violations of "human rights" in Atlasia.

[Bono]

Everything in this amendment seems perfectacly reasonable to me.  It just ensures things like the right to bear arms, or freedom of speech and the press.  I again urge the senators to pass this.  Currently the Pacific could make a law that said that no one could make fun of the Governor, else they be given the death penalty!  Or the Midwest could, say, outlaw the smiley.  the Northeast could outlaw weapons of any sort.  The Mideast could make slavery legal and the Southeast could deny someone a trial.

Not that any of this will happen, but it could!

By this logic, we should also allow the UN to intervene in violations of "human rights" in Atlasia.

No, because we aren’t the same country.  Anyway, these are very basic rights, that’s what I was trying to point out.  I don’t understand why we shouldn’t ensure these rights for the entire nation.

Then no, becuase we aren't the same region.
Why don't  you trust the people and the constitution of your own region, let's never even mind the fact that you are governor?
Plus, i disagree that forcing employers to deal with, and workers to be pushed around and estorted by organized crime is a basic right, and it is certainly one that, even if this tyranical legislation is passed, that as long as I am Governor of the Southeast and the people of my region support me on this, I will not enforce, unless compelled by the force of bayonetts.

[Bono]

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about

"Right" to "colective bargaining".

[Bono]

Plus, i disagree that forcing employers to deal with, and workers to be pushed around and estorted by organized crime is a basic right...

I have said that any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the regions unless explicitly stated. By the very same logic, any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to private persons unless explicitly stated.

The collective bargaining clause, under this rule of construction that governs interpretation of the Constitution, means that the government may not prohibit unions. It contains no rule whatsoever governing the action private employers.

There is a right to bear arms. Does that mean that I have to allow everyone to bear arms on my property? It does not--it only means that the government cannot prohibit the bearing of arms.

By the same logic, there is a right to collective bargaining, but it operates only against legislation of the government, never against the actions of private employers.

Whatever the intent of the collective bargaining clause may be, it cannot be interpreted as governing the actions of private individuals in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

[Bono]

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

How so? The Southeast has not banned unions. It has merely provided that people may choose not to join them--there is no violation there.

Right to work laws use government power to prohibit close shop deals that would limit workers choices of dealing or not with the unions.
Plus, never mind this, with Peter Bell and Ernest on the court there is no way that clause would be interpreted like that. They'd just make up some other inanity of the sort of that "items of commerce" nonsense.

[Bono]

Right to work laws use government power to prohibit close shop deals that would limit workers choices of dealing or not with the unions.

Well, from a libertarian perspective, closed shops should not be prohibited, and neither should yellow dog contracts, but that's another matter.

Of course not, but this is not what this is about. I was elected to defend the laws of the Southeast.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the "right to colective bargaining" is merely protecting from government intervention against forming unions, this would be covered under the freedom of asociation clause.

[Bono]

If the "right to colective bargaining" is merely protecting from government intervention against forming unions, this would be covered under the freedom of asociation clause.

I believe that there is only an explicit right to peacable assembly, not association (and there is a difference). So the collective bargaining clause is not entirely redundant.

I do not believe that this amendment will have any unfortunate consequences such as giving rise to a right to privacy, abortion, or liberty of contract. It was crafted quite carefully to exclude substantive due process.

I am, however, mindful of the federalism argument. It has certainly been very persuasive, although I am not fully convinced yet. On the one hand, I would trust the People of each Region to pass their own laws. On the other hand, I strongly believe that all governments ought to be restrained so as to prevent tyranny. While I am not entirely a fan of the unintended consequences argument, I do consider the federalism argument to be quite strong--so I will reserve my view on the subject for now.

Don't you trust the federal government to be restrained by its own bill of rights? Why not trust regions to be restrained by their own bill of rights?