Daily Archives: January 4, 2011
Did you ever wonder where the Republican Party of today came from? A site called Who Hijacked Our Country printed the 1956 Republican Party Platform:
“The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;
Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;
Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;
Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;
Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;
Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;
Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;
Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;
Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;
Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public.
The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration.”
Fascinating, no? I particularly liked “Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public” and “Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex.”
- But Is It Organizing? (talkingunion.wordpress.com)
- Why Were Minimum Wage Laws Established? (cash-bandit.com)
- Seven states to boost minimum wage (money.cnn.com)
- NJPP Monday Minute 12/27/10: To Insure Promptness: Tips for the Holiday Season (middletownmike.blogspot.com)
CLM: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Wow! This means that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against women… pay them less, keep them out of major universities, require them to accept conservative sex laws… and there is nothing in the Constitution (read: the 14th Amendment) to stop it.
This from the Huffington Post:
“In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger,” Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. “It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection — or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so.”
Looking a little farther into this issue of Scalia versus Women is this piece from the Young Turks from last September:
This gives less respect for the Supreme Court’s Conservative majority than I had already.
- Scalia: Women Have No Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination (towleroad.com)
- Scalia: The Constitution Does Not Prohibit Gender Discrimination (themoderatevoice.com)
- Scalia Says Constitution Allows Discrimination Against women, Gays (themoderatevoice.com)
- Women Bewarned, You Have no Constitutional Rights Protecting you from Discrimination (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Justice Scalia Will Teach Tea Party’s Constitution Class [Video] (gawker.com)
- Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals (pinkbananaworld.com)
- Thousands of dead birds picked up in Ark. town (hosted.ap.org)
- 2,000 Blackbirds Fall Dead in Central Arkansas (brainz.org)
- No poison found in birds that fell on Ark. town (msnbc.msn.com)
- 100,000 Fish And 5,000 Birds Die In Arkansas On New Years Day Mystery [Video] (realestateradiousa.com)
- Quesion of the day: What killed all the birds? (capitolhillblue.com)
- Shower of dead birds: apocalypse or accident? (newscientist.com)