American Liberty - (still losing her way)

[SoCalifer]

Is it just me; am I wrong in seeing today's American (my country where I was born and love) losing all of her founding principles of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and that this is a country of government of the people, by the people, "for the people", and not a government of business, by business, for business?

Am I wrong in my thinking that this country is a place where a person is considered (and thus to be respected) as a "sovereign" individual who is entitled to due process of law, and who is innocent until proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty?

And if I am correct, then am I wrong in my thinking that America isn't America the land of the free anymore -rather instead- she's turning into a corporate plantation where the law so much doesn't protect and serves anymore, but rather is the sheep dog, and we are the sheep?

I post this not just because of the news article below (link provided), but because this article is just one small example of countless examples (some bigger, some smaller) that I see all the time. And it seems to just keep getting worse and worse and worse.


Anyway check out this article:
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7440773


(excerpt): CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.



Now I don't know how others feel about the smoking part and the argument of piss testing by employers. But the way I read the parts of the Constitution below is:

Just because you enter onto someone's property (private or otherwise), you do not lose any of your rights as an American citizen. And a company placing as a condition for your employment that you do not smoke, or that you do not weigh too much, or even that you do not take drugs on your own time; is in my opinion, not just a violation of Constitutional rights, but a crime against humanity as well - if you ask me.

Am I wrong to see that as not too undifferent than if I made up a rule that as a condition for women to enter my place of business, they have to strip nude? Of course that's absurd, and to me, so is the above news article.


----------------------------



Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Amendment IX


The enumeration (the list) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[ladjf]

1. American Democracy is now a prisoner, but , not dead.

On death row, awaiting execution. We need to save her.

[papau]

2. Employers have no limit as to discrimination-except as to "protected"

classes - such as sex, color, religion, country of origin

Short, fat, not as pretty, smoker, garlic eater, gum chewer, slow walker, slow talker, bad hair color folks can be dumped at anytime under our "worker at will" rules - because they say you have the equivalent right to quit! :-)

so what is the complaint about? - this is called corporate equality!

:-)

[SoCalifer]

3. papau I disagree

To your assertion.

Not trying to be argumentative or anything; but in my opinion your argument violates the 9th Amendment within the Bill Of Rights.

Certainly just because there's nothing enumerated in the Constitution guaranteeing that you have a right to equality if your fat, ugly, a garlic eater, a gum chewer, a slow walker, or someone with ugly hair color doesn't mean that you don't have that right. This is the whole basis behind the 9th Amendment. It covers all things not listed in the Constitution, because it would be totally unreasonable to have to list every single right in the Constitution - like the right to go to the bathroom.

--Also--

In my opinion your argument violates the "Equal Protection Of The Law" clause in the 14th Amendment. Certainly a law protecting an employer which allows him to discriminate against short people, fat people, ugly people, etc, etc as a condiction for employmet. Is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

:)

[papau]

4. I wish the Courts saw it your way - the cases I have been involved in

have an employer 100% success rate in the Courts 'cause "worker at will" gives you no rights.

[SoCalifer]

5. papau since it sounds like you have

legal experience. May I ask a question from you.

In the "worker at will" you cite. Couldn't (in reguards to what I cited above) the Land mark U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury Vs Madison be cited? Where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this seperation of powers case, that "No Law", No Act, or Legislation can override the U.S. Constitution.

--And--

Then also bring up U.S. Constitution Article VI (Clause2): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[papau]

6. My legal experience is as a manager hiring lawyers - folks I have

terminated have gone to court - and they never get anywhere because of the worker at will arguement that my lawyer or lawyers throw on the table.

Hence a 100% success rate with worker at will cases -

Did not mean to say I was a lawyer - I'm just an actuary!

:-)