Student Expelled for Tweet

[The Mad Monk]

The same can be said about the citizens

A man without power can only do so much.

[regexcellent]

You seem to see 'rights' as a list of things the government can't do to you. That's a strange attitude for a country that seems to pride itself on its democracy. The government isn't some hostile force, the government is you.

That is exactly how I see rights, and that is exactly how the people who wrote our constitution saw them.

The purpose of the constitution is to limit the government so that it can't be a hostile force. The government is uniquely capable of becoming an extremely dangerous hostile force, more than any other entity. Or as TMM said,

Government is like a fire, capable of being used for good, but also causing greivous harm if not tightly controled.

Just look around at countries like Zimbabwe and it becomes obvious that the one entity which is capable of individually destroying the entire country is the government.

[BlackCat]

Government is like a fire, capable of being used for good, but also causing greivous harm if not tightly controled.

The same can be said about the citizens

[The Mad Monk]

You seem to see 'rights' as a list of things the government can't do to you. That's a strange attitude for a country that seems to pride itself on its democracy. The government isn't some hostile force, the government is you.

Government is like a fire, capable of being used for good, but also causing greivous harm if not tightly controled.

[onodera]

Reg sounds like someone from a gulch.
Why shouldn't a group of people be able to enter into an agreement stating that for their taxes they should get universal healthcare and education?

[kentonio]

Yes because that's not a limitation on government and therefore doesn't belong in a bill of rights. It's a legislative matter, not a constitutional matter.

You seem to see 'rights' as a list of things the government can't do to you. That's a strange attitude for a country that seems to pride itself on its democracy. The government isn't some hostile force, the government is you.

[giblets]

Yes because that's not a limitation on government and therefore doesn't belong in a bill of rights. It's a legislative matter, not a constitutional matter.

How is that not a limitation on the government? The government can't allow "unfair" working conditions in that case.

[regexcellent]

So its ridiculous to say that people have the right to fair and just working conditions?

Yes because that's not a limitation on government and therefore doesn't belong in a bill of rights. It's a legislative matter, not a constitutional matter.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe it goes contrary to the rights of big corporations to exploit their workers and save money by letting them work under unsafe working conditions (after all it is the big corporations who give all the money for the big parties and who therefore can expect that their interests are protected by politicians)

[kentonio]

The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

So its ridiculous to say that people have the right to fair and just working conditions? Given that we all have to work during our lives, and work fills a huge part of each persons day, why exactly is it ridiculous to try and ensure that such an obligatory part of peoples lives is protected against unfair or unjust exploitation?

[Aeson]

Are you saying the thirteenth amendment shouldn't have affected working environments or wages?

[regexcellent]

What I'm articulating is that our constitution does not do something that many European constitutions or enumerations of rights do. I'm also saying that this particular thing they do, dictate policy, is something that they should not do. In particular, they should not conflate the proper notion of a right, which is something the government can't do to you, with economic regulation on what kind of agreements you can come to with your business partners (working in unsafe environments for low wages).

Yes, the American constitution could require the government to require employers to provide some kind of minimum wage or safe working environment. It doesn't, and it shouldn't, and moreover that would go entirely against the philosophy around which the document was written.

[Aeson]

HC has it exactly right. The "Basic Law" aspect of the constitution, stating how the government functions and elections are held, is separate from the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights. Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of the federal government forms a "whitelist" of things the government can do, while stating that anything necessary and proper to carry out such functions may also be done. The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

You're both conflating "how it's organized" with "what it does", and seem incapable of understanding "what it actually could do".

[DaShi]

Kind of cruel and unusual, if you ask me.

[regexcellent]

It would probably be worse if it were designed today, but more to the point, I doubt that there would be policy in a rewritten American constitution because there's too much disagreement on that account to reach a suitable compromise wherein the States would all agree to ratify it.