|
CA Supreme Court allows only union protests on private property
By John Seiler In civics and law classes, we’re taught that the court system is “objective” and “follows the Constitution.” In fact, courts are just more political bodies. And as someone said, the U.S. Supreme Court “reads the newspapers.” That’s also true of the California Supreme Court. It just ruled that private property can be invaded by union protesters, but not by other protesters or by people gathering signatures for petitions. What a coincidence. Just last month, unions demonstrated their total control over California by passing the Proposition 30 tax increase, defeating the Proposition 32 limit on taking union dues for politics directly from employee paychecks and pushing a Democratic supermajority into power in the state Legislature. Two years ago, unions put Jerry Brown on the governor’s throne; he calls them “my troops.” As to protests, the U.S. Constitution is clear: they are allowed on public property, such as sidewalks, but not on private property. The Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” When the government allows unions — and only unions — to trample on your property, then your property is being “taken for public use, without just compensation” — or any compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted after slavery was abolished, also guaranteed, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” State courts allowing unions to march on your private property obviously is a State — in the case before us, California — depriving property owners of their “property, without due process of law.” What about the rights to free speech and to protest, as guaranteed by the First Amendment? Those certainly are allowed — on public property, or on private property with the owner’s permission. But no one, obviously, has a right to barge into your living room and start protesting your beliefs; that’s your private property. And the building, parking lot and private sidewalks of a business are its private property. Except for union protests in the state of Unionifornia.
Tags: California Supreme Court, Constitution, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, John Seiler, unions Comments(12) |
May 21, 2013
In civics and law classes, we’re taught that the court system is “objective” and “follows the Constitution.” In fact, courts are just more political bodies
The law is completely subjective and the interpretation of it is all that counts, having said that the law today is gamed and manipulated beyond anything our founding fathers could have ever imagined. It is 100% political b/c the vast majority of judges are selected not on merit, but cronyism (wow, the gov hiring and promoting on cronyism, where have I heard this before
) They will rule the way the gov (or president and senate for federal judges) who appointed them want them to rule.
Spending a bit to get by(living below your means) is the best revenge.
To anyone who thinks that is not being a good citizen by pumping up sales tax payments for the bloated California gov t needs. Tough for you and tough for courts, state gov t etc…Hee Hee. Make 2013 the year of citizen frugality. Starve the beast. Buy used stuff.
Don’t just blame the court for this – they simply ruled on a law passed by the legislature and signed by Jerry Brown. Our freedoms are being trampled every day by the old hippie and his buddies, and there is nobody who has the power to take them on.
We are doomed.
Don’t just blame the court for this – they simply ruled on a law passed by the legislature and signed by Jerry Brown
==
The courts are the ones who are SUPPOSED to protect all of us, to put the law makers in check, they do not, so they are most to blame.
Hippies were aimless, savvy. Jerry Brown has never been aimless!
Jerry Clown has NEVER held a real/regular job seesaw-ever.
No, Rex. Jerry Brown has been working at a real job since the 70′s. Public sector jobs count for real jobs, whatever you think about it. You are the one who is a Clown!
Seesaw, I am not old enough to remember the clown from the 70s, but I do know that public sector jobs are not real jobs. Those who hold public sector jobs generally fall short on the competence scale and rely heavily on the paternalism of the government. Public sector employees are in the public sector for a reason and rarely leave the nurturing arms and paternalism of the government. Public sector employees are, for the most part, those who could not survive the scrutiny of a competitive labor market so they look to the government for their livelihood! And it is no coincidence that I refer to them as public sector employees and not public sector workers–that would be an oxymoron!
Fthe, I was a public employee for 40 years. What you say is not true–period.
Seesaw, that’s my point. You were a public employee for forty years. I suppose now that you will say you did it out of “public service” and not because of the security you enjoyed as a government worker. Whether you truly provided a value to the public is not for me to debate, but I can safely assume that whatever you did for forty years could have been done cheaper and more efficiently had your role been turned over to a competitive sector.
I did it to make a living. Why did you do the job you did? With me, it sure wasn’t for the salary or any pension–it was for $1.85/hr. I spent 40 years working my way up to $50,000/yr. As far as what your opinionated–not fact-related, thoughts are about whether my job could have been done cheaper in the private sector–I could care less what you think!
Seesaw, you’re missing the point. Of course you did it to make a living. That’s why we all do it. My point is not an attack on you, but rather that the benefits and security enjoyed by public employees far exceed those of the private sector and are paid by the private sector. In fact, I would imagine that you may have children or grandchildren and others close to you that will be burdened for years to come as their money will go to pay for more government jobs, pensions and healthcare guarantees that they will never enjoy themselves if they are in the private sector. Recall that those of us in the private sector have no guarantees on retirement income; we rely on prudent decision making and hope that the market does well for our savings. And as for my opinion not being fact related, here’s a fact: you spent forty years in the public force as you openly declared. That reaffirms everything I have said.