Legal Theory and Politics: Private Social Contracts and the Constitution

Legal theory and politics. Private social contracts and the constution.

Private social contracts (that may result in employment), can be considered an individual power and a private property right, that is guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment; in our Bill of Rights. From this perspective, the federal government has no enumerated authority to deny or disparage the private property right of individuals to create or dissolve private social contracts; including, those that may result in employment or discharge of an individual.

Article 1, Section 10 of the federal constitution; specifically denies the power to impair in the the obligation of contracts, to the governments of the several states. From this perspective, the several states have no US constitutional authority to impair, otherwise lawful private social contracts between private individuals, even if it results in an employment contract, or its dissolution.

From the point of view of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, at-will forms of employment can be considered a private property right between individuals, and a state's right to protect that form of contractual obligation.

Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, specifically authorizes our federal congress to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. From this perspective, providing for the general welfare, could be accomplished by correcting for market inefficiencies that are conducive to forms of poverty that are related to frictional unemployment. At-will unemployment compensation could help provide for the general Welfare by improving the efficiency of the labor market; thus, improving the general Welfare of all market participants in the US market for labor.

Don't you ever quit?

Take your games somewhere else. We're not interested.

You mean, how dare the government stop employers from firing people any time they choose, and imposing ridiculous requirements on employers like "unemployment insurance" and "worker's compensation", or allowing workers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Don't you ever quit?

Take your games somewhere else. We're not interested.

---

You mean you aren't interested in legal theory and politics, or private social contracts and obligations?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You mean, how dare the government stop employers from firing people any time they choose, and imposing ridiculous requirements on employers like "unemployment insurance" and "worker's compensation", or allowing workers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining?

---

I mean, where in the US Constitution, is the specifically enumerated authority of the federal government to deny or disparage a private individual's Ninth Amendment right to create or dissolve a private social contract, even if a contractual obligation results from such a contract?

I mean that I'm not interested in your cockamamie theories.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I mean that I'm not interested in your cockamamie theories.

---

I am merely quoting the constitution. What part of Article 1, Section 8, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and a constitutional interpretation that conforms the theory of supply and demand; ostensibly, for the public good, do you find objectionable?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Legal theory and politics. Private social contracts and the constution.

Private social contracts (that may result in employment), can be considered an individual power and a private property right, that is guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment; in our Bill of Rights. From this perspective, the federal government has no enumerated authority to deny or disparage the private property right of individuals to create or dissolve private social contracts; including, those that may result in employment or discharge of an individual.

Article 1, Section 10 of the federal constitution; specifically denies the power to impair in the the obligation of contracts, to the governments of the several states. From this perspective, the several states have no US constitutional authority to impair, otherwise lawful private social contracts between private individuals, even if it results in an employment contract, or its dissolution.

From the point of view of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, at-will forms of employment can be considered a private property right between individuals, and a state's right to protect that form of contractual obligation.

Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, specifically authorizes our federal congress to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. From this perspective, providing for the general welfare, could be accomplished by correcting for market inefficiencies that are conducive to forms of poverty that are related to frictional unemployment. At-will unemployment compensation could help provide for the general Welfare by improving the efficiency of the labor market; thus, improving the general Welfare of all market participants in the US market for labor.

---

I don't suppose you can break this gobbledygook down to where a judge could understand it, can you?

If you can't explain something to a sixth grader, you don't understand it yourself.

So...I don't know if I agree with you or not!

From my perspective, an individual has the power and the right (from 9A) to create private social contracts with other private individuals. It is understood that obligations may arise from some forms of contracts (e.g. employment).

In this sense, social contracts that result in employment, may be considered an individual liberty (and a form of private property right) retained by the people and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment.

Article 1, Section 10 of the federal constitution; specifically denies the power to impair in the the obligation of contracts, to the governments of the several states.

From this perspective, the several states have no US constitutional authority to impair, otherwise lawful private social contracts between private individuals, even if it results in an employment contract, or its dissolution.

From the point of view of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, at-will forms of employment can be considered a private property right between individuals; and considered a state's right to protect that form of contractual obligation, if it exists.

Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, specifically authorizes our federal congress to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

From this perspective, providing for the general welfare, could be accomplished by correcting for market inefficiencies that are conducive to forms of poverty that are related to frictional unemployment. Creating more efficient markets could be considered a form of infrastructure development and a form of public good.

At-will unemployment compensation could help provide for the general Welfare by (the public sector) improving the efficiency of the labor market by competing with the private sector; thus, improving the general Welfare of all market participants in the US market for labor.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

At-will unemployment compensation could help provide for the general Welfare by (the public sector) improving the efficiency of the labor market by competing with the private sector; thus, improving the general Welfare of all market participants in the US market for labor.

---

Time for a new round of ideas daniel. This one was beat to death last time and you convinced nobody....

and it is still a load of hooey!

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Time for a new round of ideas daniel. This one was beat to death last time and you convinced nobody....

and it is still a load of hooey!

---

Why is it so hard to convince people who may have sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution of our glorious republic; if all I presented were quotes from the constitution and an economic perspective.

What if the perception of providing for the general Welfare (as a form of public good) of the United States were considered a ethically, legally, and morally acceptable petition to Government for redress of specific grievances?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Why is it so hard to convince people who may have sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution of our glorious republic; if all I presented were quotes from the constitution and an economic perspective.

What if the perception of providing for the general Welfare (as a form of public good) of the United States were considered a ethically, legally, and morally acceptable petition to Government for redress of specific grievances?

---

I have never sworn any oath to defend our constitution, our country, or really anything at all. The only swearing going on around my house is when my wife makes the remote disappear.

This was not an acceptable idea last time and it is still not an acceptable idea (at least to me). I have seen no others on this site in support of it either.

Why must you continue? Watching you do this is like that video where the karate master is trying to break the bat. He keeps hitting it and hitting it and it will simply not break. Does he give up? Not a chance. He continues to show he is not capable of breaking the bat, just the same as you continue to show you cannot convince anybody to see things your way. It's sad, yet for some disturbed reason, amusing.

The USSC has ruled there is NO 14th AM property interest right in employment of an at will government employee, so it stands to reason, a private citizen has none also.



http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/341/index.html

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I have never sworn any oath to defend our constitution, our country, or really anything at all. The only swearing going on around my house is when my wife makes the remote disappear.

This was not an acceptable idea last time and it is still not an acceptable idea (at least to me). I have seen no others on this site in support of it either.

Why must you continue? Watching you do this is like that video where the karate master is trying to break the bat. He keeps hitting it and hitting it and it will simply not break. Does he give up? Not a chance. He continues to show he is not capable of breaking the bat, just the same as you continue to show you cannot convince anybody to see things your way. It's sad, yet for some disturbed reason, amusing.

---

What is your opinion on the ethical, legal, and moral aspects of this line of reasoning? In other words, how can it be considered more ethical, legal, or moral; to engage in our socialized wars on drugs and terror, if those powers are not specifically enumerated to the federal government, than public policy that is specifically enumerated in our constitution?

Our constitution is the basis for our legal system. Why do you advocate a warfare-state economic model, when an economic model that provides for the general welfare-state, is specifically enumerated in our constitution?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

The USSC has ruled there is NO 14th AM property interest right in employment of an at will government employee, so it stands to reason, a private citizen has none also.



http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/341/index.html

---

That case involved a public employee, and is not a truer form of private contract or obligation (as a form of property) between private individuals.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

That case involved a public employee, and is not a truer form of private contract or obligation (as a form of property) between private individuals.

---

No state high court has ruled that a private citizen is entitled to employment as a constitutional property interest either.

Of course I am not talking about organized labor, which is overseen by the NLRB and subject to Constitutional scrutiny.

Why would any state rule that a private citizen is entitled to employment, in a state with at-will employment laws, and a mixed market economy? That suggestion would be typical of truer forms of command economies.

My argument, is that the constitution does not enumerate any power of the federal government; to deny or disparage private social transactions, between private individuals, that may result in an employment contract.

In other words, what specific power is granted to the federal government; that would nullify the authority of the Ninth Amendment and a form of pursuing happiness (even if only in the form of a private profit motive); that results in a contract and obligation of an employment relationship between those private individuals.

It is also my contention, that the states are specifically denied and disparaged the power to impair in the obligation of contracts between private individuals exercising their Ninth Amendment right to pursue happiness, even if it involves a social transaction that results in employment and the obligation of that contract.

Your focus on guaranteed employment is too narrow. A truer form of providing for the general Welfare, would be to encourage at-will forms of unemployment compensation, in states that have at-will employment laws.

The public sector is already responsible for official weights and measures. Simple metrics can be used to determine and correct for inefficiencies in market for labor. Correcting some market inefficiencies can have the result of improving standards of living for the market participants involved (e.g. the US market for labor).

From this perspective such public sector interference in the markets can be done for the public good, and considered a form of infrastructure development that provides for the general Welfare of the populace of the United States.

Maybe if you would state your position clearly, rather than digressing into issues of constitutional law which are well outside of your understanding, we would be able to figure out what you think you are talking about.

You are always welcome to your opinion, even if it is based on fallacies.

I would be happy to hear a cogent rebuttal to the implied premise: In other words, what specific power is granted to the federal government; that would nullify the authority of the Ninth Amendment and a form of pursuing happiness (even if only in the form of a private profit motive); that results in a contract and obligation of an employment relationship between those private individuals.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You are always welcome to your opinion, even if it is based on fallacies.

I would be happy to hear a cogent rebuttal to the implied premise: In other words, what specific power is granted to the federal government; that would nullify the authority of the Ninth Amendment and a form of pursuing happiness (even if only in the form of a private profit motive); that results in a contract and obligation of an employment relationship between those private individuals.

---

can you tell me where this is in practice? and what does this have to do with unemployment payments at will?

Your ramblings are nearly incoherent.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Maybe if you would state your position clearly, rather than digressing into issues of constitutional law which are well outside of your understanding, we would be able to figure out what you think you are talking about.

---

Thank you aaron. Each consecutive post is worse than the previous. I can't figure out who Daniel is trying to impress.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You are always welcome to your opinion, even if it is based on fallacies.

I would be happy to hear a cogent rebuttal to the implied premise: In other words, what specific power is granted to the federal government; that would nullify the authority of the Ninth Amendment and a form of pursuing happiness (even if only in the form of a private profit motive); that results in a contract and obligation of an employment relationship between those private individuals.

---

It seems to me that the only opinion you care about is your own. If people don't agree with you, they are wrong (or have their opinions based in fallacy). Why not start you own debate board - then you can ramble to your hearts content.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

can you tell me where this is in practice? and what does this have to do with unemployment payments at will?

Your ramblings are nearly incoherent.

---

This thread only deals with unemployment issues, incidentally. I try to use simple American English, whenever possible.

To clarify what this thread is about I will repost it for you: Re: Legal Theory and Politics: Private Social Contracts and the Constitution

Quote:

---

Quoting cbent2005

---

It seems to me that the only opinion you care about is your own. If people don't agree with you, they are wrong (or have their opinions based in fallacy). Why not start you own debate board - then you can ramble to your hearts content.

---

I thought this was the debate forum, not the Peoples' Committee on Officially Accepted Public Dogma forum.

Developing a habit of using the known fallacies of ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum ad populum may be useful in the legal sector, but it does nothing to further understanding in an actual debate where reason and logic are placed firmly in their seat.

You are more than welcome to actually use logic and reason in this debate.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I thought this was the debate forum, not the Peoples' Committee on Officially Accepted Public Dogma.

Developing a habit of using the known fallacies of ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum ad populum may be useful in the legal sector, but it does nothing to further understanding in an actual debate where reason and logic are placed firmly in their seat.

You are more than welcome to actually use logic and reason in this debate.

---

You are correct (about the debate forum). Your neverending ramblings and attempts to impress us with your vocabulary are putting most of us to sleep. Like I said before, if people don't agree with your point of view, you consider them uniformed and ingnorant. You lecture - you don't debate.

Quote:

---

This thread only deals with unemployment issues, incidentally. I try to use simple American English, whenever possible.

---

then what is this statement doing in a previous post on this thrread? :

Quote:

---

Your focus on guaranteed employment is too narrow. A truer form of providing for the general Welfare, would be to encourage at-will forms of unemployment compensation, in states that have at-will employment laws.

---

Quote:

---

To clarify what this thread is about I will repost it for you: Re: Legal Theory and Politics: Private Social Contracts and the Constitution

---

ya, and what about them? I asked you to give example of what you believe is being denied due to a consitutional restriction that you believe is in error. You have failed to do so. You seem to like to simply repeat the same ramblings continually through a thread and do not progress your point.

Quote:

---

I try to use simple American English, whenever possible.

---

that does not mean your statements are coherent.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbent2005

---

You are correct (about the debate forum). Your neverending ramblings and attempts to impress us with your vocabulary are putting most of us to sleep. Like I said before, if people don't agree with your point of view, you consider them uniformed and ingnorant. You lecture - you don't debate.

---

You will notice that I also do not need to resort to known fallacies, in an attempt to achieve a form of appeal to authority (e.g. to the Peoples' Committee of Elders of the Legal Profession).

I am not working on a dissertation for an intellectual degree; therefore, I don't have a private profit motive to impress anyone about this topic. How did you reach your conclusion?

You are more than welcome to give your opinion of this premise:

What specific power is enumerated to the federal government; that would nullify the authority of the Ninth Amendment and a form of pursuing happiness (even if only in the form of a private profit motive); that results in a contract and obligation of an employment relationship between those private individuals?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

What specific power is enumerated to the federal government; that would nullify the authority of the Ninth Amendment and a form of pursuing happiness (even if only in the form of a private profit motive); that results in a contract and obligation of an employment relationship between those private individuals?

---

who said there is one? You have yet to offer evidence of such restriction yet you continue to make these arguments.

Here is the answer; there isn;t one.

Now dispute my claim, and give proof.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

then what is this statement doing in a previous post on this thrread? :



ya, and what about them? I asked you to give example of what you believe is being denied due to a constitutional restriction that you believe is in error. You have failed to do so. You seem to like to simply repeat the same ramblings continually through a thread and do not progress your point.

that does not mean your statements are coherent.

---

You may have missed the point I am making.

The only constitutional restrictions I am concerned with are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and their restrictions on the power of the various governments that derive their authority from that constitution.

Can you cite where in the US Constitution, there is any specifically enumerated power granted to our federal congress, that nullifies the authority of the 9A and 10A?

Our federal government only has the authority to regulate commerce, not prohibit commerce. Setting official weights and measures standards is more beneficial to an economy than micromanagement via command (legislated) economics.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You may have missed the point I am making.

The only constitution restrictions I am concerned with are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and their restrictions on the power of the various governments that derive their authority from that constitution.

Can you cite where in the US Constitution, there is any specifically enumerated power granted to our federal congress, that nullifies the authority of the 9A and 10A?

Our federal government only has the authority to regulate commerce, not prohibit commerce. Setting official weights and measures standards is more beneficial to an economy than micromanagement via command (legislated) economics.

---

until you offer evidence that there is actually such restriction, I will remove myself from this discussion.

Your statements are not logical nor are they logically related.

btw: regulating something would include prohibiting that thing as well. Prohibition is regulation.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

who said there is one? You have yet to offer evidence of such restriction yet you continue to make these arguments.

Here is the answer; there isn;t one.

Now dispute my claim, and give proof.

---

Then, whence any federal legislation regarding employment, at all; since there is no specific constitutional authority granted to our federal congress that nullifies the authority of a private individual exercising their Ninth Amendment power and right, to create social contracts between individuals; and any obligations that may result?

The several states are specifically denied and disparaged the authority to impair in the obligation of contracts, in the normal course of pursuing happiness (from the 9a); with the caveat of reserving their traditional powers sufficient to ensure the domestic tranquility.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Then, whence any federal legislation regarding employment, at all; since there is no specific constitutional authority granted to our federal congress that nullifies the authority of a private individual exercising their Ninth Amendment power and right, to create social contracts between individuals; and any obligations that may result?

The several states are specifically denied and disparaged the authority to impair in the obligation of contracts, in the normal course of pursuing happiness (from the 9a); with the caveat of reserving their traditional powers sufficient to ensure the domestic tranquility.

---

I told you, give example to support your postition.

Reading and trying to interpret the constitution has been going on for 200 plus years and willl continue for as long as it is in effect.

Simply posting something written does not define your position. Even before the SCOTUS, one must present proof and evidence of a position. You continue to fail to do this yet you want somebody to take on your argument. I refuted your claim and challenged you to provide proof, I'm still waiting.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

until you offer evidence that there is actually such restriction, I will remove myself from this discussion.

Your statements are not logical nor are they logically related.

btw: regulating something would include prohibiting that thing as well. Prohibition is regulation.

---

Prohibition is not regulation, or we would not need a different word. Setting official weights and measures can be considered a form of Regulation. Prohibition involves the coercive use of force of the state, and may be considered an unconstitutional usurpation of federal power (since it is not enumerated); especially when it attempts to deny and disparage the powers and rights retained by the people and the states.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I told you, give example to support your postition.

Reading and trying to interpret the constitution has been going on for 200 plus years and willl continue for as long as it is in effect.

Simply posting something written does not define your position. Even before the SCOTUS, one must present proof and evidence of a position. You continue to fail to do this yet you want somebody to take on your argument. I refuted your claim and challenged you to provide proof, I'm still waiting.

---

I suppose it would make a difference from a code law versus case law perspective.

I am simply going by the supreme code law of the land, a social contract called the US Constitution.

It is my understanding, that case law only interprets specific instances of code law.

What is an opinion on the ethical, legal, and moral aspects of this line of reasoning?

In other words, how can it be considered more ethical, legal, or moral; to engage in our socialized wars on drugs and terror; especially, if those powers are no longer specifically enumerated to the federal government (since the repeal of the prohibition amendment); than public policy that is specifically enumerated in our constitution and that can be considered a public good that provides for the general Welfare (the public good) of the United States?

For comparison, our "socialized" wars on drugs and terror cannot be considered public goods or that they provide a public good, or provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

To keep it simple. If public policy, for the public good, can be considered holy and moral; then public policy that is not for the public good can be considered unholy and immoral (i.e the public evil or the public bad).

prohibition is contained within regulation.

while regulation is not neccessarily prohibition, prohibition is most definately regulation.

Quote:

---

To keep it simple. If public policy, for the public good, can be considered holy and moral; then public policy that is not for the public good can be considered unholy and immoral (i.e the public evil or the public bad).

---

that is a really bad example. Based on that reasoning, if something is not black, it must be white. You forgot about gray.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

prohibition is contained within regulation.

while regulation is not neccessarily prohibition, prohibition is most definately regulation.

that is a really bad example. Based on that reasoning, if something is not black, it must be white. You forgot about gray.

---

The US Constitution only enumerates the power to Regulate, not Prohibit commerce.

Your sophistry does credit to the logic of your argument, from a public sector perspective.

However, how does that view account for the guarantees provided by the 9A and 10A?

From one perspective, the theory of nullification would suggest, that an individual or state may not be denied or disparaged the right to nullify the authority of the federal government when the authority in question is not specifically enumerated as a power of that government; especially, when it attempts to deny or disparage the individual rights retained by the people and the states.

From one point of view, morals are not about shades of gray. They are about right and wrong; good and evil; and good and bad. I am not aware of any anecdotal evidence that suggests a practice of percentage based shades of morality.

In any event, morals are protected under the First Amendment, and denied and disparaged for religious use, to our federal congress. It is also my contention, that they can be considered a form of private property right to its practitioners.

Ethics are a better tool to determine degrees of gray.

jk -- do you enjoy jousting with someone who knows how to use a dictionary?

I can't even tell what the guy is for or against since he won't say.

If you can dazzle them with your footwork, baffle them with your bullshit!

Knowing how to read a book, even if only a dictionary, can help clarify how a person constructs constructive criticism.

I tend to agree with one of our wise AND Founding Father's thoughts on the subject of laws and social contracts:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

Until you can clearly, simply, and plainly state your position, I can't tell you whether I agree with you.:wallbang: