Doe v. Mordac

[Ebowed]

I thought your argument was that the Bill of Rights guarantees abortion rights, not the Constitution does not mention the authority to restrict abortion.  As the latter is considerably stronger than the former, why did you only use it after losing the case?

Either way, I will have to review the Southeastern Constitution, as you appear to be taking a very narrow view of what the Constitution says.  I don't think that just because it does not mention the authority to regulate abortion, there is a lack of authority to regulate abortion.  It goes both ways.

[John Dibble]

I knew I would get bitched at no matter what I did in this case. I only interpreted the way I thought it was supposed to be interpreted, if you don't like it then get over it. I've already said we need to change the damn thing so we don't get this stupid wide range of interpretation - so let's just work on that and be done with it.

And let me say if I took the literal interpretation, it would have outlawed more than just the abortion initiative - for example, I'd say the Day of Rest Initiative(which need I remind you people I despise with a passion) could be interpreted as forcing someone to act against their conscience by making them close their business when they don't want to, and I seriously don't think that section 5 was meant to go into this realm but with the uber literal interpretation of Ernest it probably would have.

[Ebowed]

Excellent point Dibble-- I was shocked that a region that generally opposes governmental interference in private business affairs voted to keep the Day of Rest Initiative by such a large margin.

[CheeseWhiz]

I know I’m not in the Southeast, but I use to be, and I support the decision reached by Magistrate Dibble.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And let me say if I took the literal interpretation, it would have outlawed more than just the abortion initiative - for example, I'd say the Day of Rest Initiative(which need I remind you people I despise with a passion) could be interpreted as forcing someone to act against their conscience by making them close their business when they don't want to, and I seriously don't think that section 5 was meant to go into this realm but with the uber literal interpretation of Ernest it probably would have.

But The Day of Rest Initiative does not prohbit, it taxes a particluar form of economic activity and it was purposely written so as to not impose any particular day of rest on any person or business.  However, given the devastation of Katrina and Rita, I do hope that Governor Mordac will use the power given to him under section 14 of that initiative to suspend the tax in selcted areas during emergencies.

[minionofmidas]

Why'd you call her Doe? Based on Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton, why not call her Moe? Or Woe?

[Bono]

Why'd you call her Doe? Based on Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton, why not call her Moe? Or Woe?

How about just ho.

[John Dibble]

And let me say if I took the literal interpretation, it would have outlawed more than just the abortion initiative - for example, I'd say the Day of Rest Initiative(which need I remind you people I despise with a passion) could be interpreted as forcing someone to act against their conscience by making them close their business when they don't want to, and I seriously don't think that section 5 was meant to go into this realm but with the uber literal interpretation of Ernest it probably would have.

But The Day of Rest Initiative does not prohbit, it taxes a particluar form of economic activity and it was purposely written so as to not impose any particular day of rest on any person or business.

It still punishes a certain activity, and for businesses that can not afford to pay the tax it is the equivalent of forcing them to shut down once a week against their will.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It still punishes a certain activity...

And how does that differ from any other tax?  At least this one has some desireable side effects because of the activity it discourages.

[Emsworth]

It still punishes a certain activity...

And how does that differ from any other tax?

It could be considered different, insomuch as the purpose of the tax is not to raise revenue, but to prohibit an activity (see United States v. Butler).

[Ebowed]

Section 1C of the Day of Rest Initiative states:

(c) Most of the world's religions call for either one day of rest per week or four days of rest per lunar month.

As this is one of the justifications provided in the initiative for the mandatory day of rest, as well as the heavy tax that goes with it, this would appear to be a violation of clause 5 of the Bill of Rights.

The Abortion Initiative, however, was not.

[John Dibble]

It still punishes a certain activity...

And how does that differ from any other tax?  At least this one has some desireable side effects because of the activity it discourages.

1. The income tax punishes working? The sales tax punishes buying? The inheritance tax punishes inheriting? These taxes are meant to raise revenue, not punish the related activity like a cigarette tax or the tax here would do.
2. I don't see how it is desireable to force businesses to shut down once a week if they are unwilling to do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It still punishes a certain activity...

And how does that differ from any other tax?

It could be considered different, insomuch as the purpose of the tax is not to raise revenue, but to prohibit an activity (see United States v. Butler).

Actually, I expect it to raise revenue come the holidays.  If a store wants to be open every day between Thanksgiving and Christmas to take advantage of the high shopping volume then, its only going to be a 4 or 5% tax, which for businesses that do most of their sales over the holidays will be preferable to being closed.  It's only businesses that try to be open 7/52 that will incur a 52% or 53% tax, which I agree will likely not happen.  However, the voters of the Southeast have repeatedly found that they consider having businesses routinely open 7 days a week to be an activity that disturbs the public peace, so under the interpretation reached by our Magistrate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Section 1C of the Day of Rest Initiative states:

(c) Most of the world's religions call for either one day of rest per week or four days of rest per lunar month.

As this is one of the justifications provided in the initiative for the mandatory day of rest, as well as the heavy tax that goes with it, this would appear to be a violation of clause 5 of the Bill of Rights.

Not really.  Viewed athiestically, religions can be viewed as codifications of social behavior adopted because their adherents found that they improve the human experience.  Thus, without asserting the validity or invalidity of any religion, section 1(c) merely notes that most pre-industrial societies found that allowing people to enjoy a day of rest approximately once every seven days to be beneficial.

[Ebowed]

And imposing what a religion views as beneficial on the businesses would be a violation of Clause 5.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see how it is desireable to force businesses to shut down once a week if they are unwilling to do so.

Lesser of two evils in this case.  Pure laisse-faire is the ideal we should aspire to, but sometimes we have to make adjustments.  In this case, the distortion caused by the existence of corporations makes this necessary in my opinion.  Eliminate corporations so that economic competition is purely between individuals and I'd have no problem will eliminating this tax as it wouldn't be needed.  However, corporations provide too many economic benefits to be done away with, so they instead need to be carefully hemmed in so that their disruptive effects can be curbed. In this case, the disruptive effect is to discourage the private entrepreneur from enjoying a day of rest, by causing him to be at a competitive disadvantage if he does so.

[John Dibble]

It still punishes a certain activity...

And how does that differ from any other tax?

It could be considered different, insomuch as the purpose of the tax is not to raise revenue, but to prohibit an activity (see United States v. Butler).

Actually, I expect it to raise revenue come the holidays.  If a store wants to be open every day between Thanksgiving and Christmas to take advantage of the high shopping volume then, its only going to be a 4 or 5% tax, which for businesses that do most of their sales over the holidays will be preferable to being closed.  It's only businesses that try to be open 7/52 that will incur a 52% or 53% tax, which I agree will likely not happen.  However, the voters of the Southeast have repeatedly found that they consider having businesses routinely open 7 days a week to be an activity that disturbs the public peace, so under the interpretation reached by our Magistrate.

Uhm, no, that's not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the Day of Rest Initiative, much as I despise it, does not enter into the realm in which clause 5 was meant to cover.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And imposing what a religion views as beneficial on the businesses would be a violation of Clause 5.

But it's not imposing what a particular religion wants, it merely is using religion as an example of how certain people have found having a day of rest to be beneficial, and what they have found to be an optimal frequency.  Perhaps you would care to point out counterexamples that say that individuals would be better off if they had no rest?

[Ebowed]

Forcing businesses to close with the threat of a heavy tax.  Using religion as one justification.

I'm just connecting the dots, Ernest

[John Dibble]

I don't see how it is desireable to force businesses to shut down once a week if they are unwilling to do so.

Lesser of two evils in this case.  Pure laisse-faire is the ideal we should aspire to, but sometimes we have to make adjustments.  In this case, the distortion caused by the existence of corporations makes this necessary in my opinion.  Eliminate corporations so that economic competition is purely between individuals and I'd have no problem will eliminating this tax as it wouldn't be needed.  However, corporations provide too many economic benefits to be done away with, so they instead need to be carefully hemmed in so that their disruptive effects can be curbed. In this case, the disruptive effect is to discourage the private entrepreneur from enjoying a day of rest, by causing him to be at a competitive disadvantage if he does so.

What prevents a private entrepreneur from hiring a manager to operate things on certain days of the week?

Further, I know a number of small business owners in real life who do close shop one or two days a week with no problem - they manage to compete with corporations all the same.

Based on what I know, there is no need to force businesses to shut down once a week to enable owners to get a day of rest.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Uhm, no, that's not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the Day of Rest Initiative, much as I despise it, does not enter into the realm in which clause 5 was meant to cover.

So then the disturbance of the public peace clause had no part of your decision on the Abortion Initiative?  If so, that's good to hear.

[John Dibble]

Uhm, no, that's not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the Day of Rest Initiative, much as I despise it, does not enter into the realm in which clause 5 was meant to cover.

So then the disturbance of the public peace clause had no part of your decision on the Abortion Initiative?  If so, that's good to hear.

Correct. I view clause 5 as being meant to be a 'freedom of religion and worship' type thing - economics aren't in that realm, so the Day of Rest isn't covered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What prevents a private entrepreneur from hiring a manager to operate things on certain days of the week?

Who says they will have enough business to justify hiring a manager or even an employee?  Wy should micro-businesses be forced to suffer an additional disadvantage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They no doubt made a rational decision that the personal benefits of enjoying a day of rest outweigh the additional revenue to be gained by being open 7 days a week.  However, I fail to see why they should be forced to have to make that choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it certainly is desirable.  It's not as if this is going to affect the total amount of commerce conducted.  People will still need to buy the same amount of goods and services.  However, this does shift the playing field slightly towards favoring small business, which as I see it, is a good thng.  All other things being equal, I'd much rather have 50 small businesses with an average of 5 workers than one big-box store with 250 employees.  There is a decided benefit, both socially and economically from encouraging our economy to be more granular and less monolithic.

[John Dibble]

What prevents a private entrepreneur from hiring a manager to operate things on certain days of the week?

Who says they will have enough business to justify hiring a manager or even an employee?  Wy should micro-businesses be forced to suffer an additional disadvantage.

Can't shutting them down when they don't want to a disadvantage? What if they need that extra day's revenue to stay in business? Well, too bad for them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They no doubt made a rational decision that the personal benefits of enjoying a day of rest outweigh the additional revenue to be gained by being open 7 days a week.  However, I fail to see why they should be forced to have to make that choice.
[/quote]

Under your preferred system, they are forced to close once a week most or even all of the year whether it benefits them or not. Under my preferred system, they are free to chose when they are open and closed as it benefits them.