what happened with this ? wrote on June 29, 2009 06:39 PM: .









http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=10529906






.

Randy wrote on June 29, 2009 06:12 PM: The whole debate is wrong, it has been nothing but an arguement circiling around poorly reasoned interpretations of the U.S. Constitution (let alone violent political philosophies).

There should be no public education, for both moral and pragmatic reasons (people should not be forced against their will to pay for something that they do not wish and public monopolies never work well).

Additionally government shouldn't even be in the business of deciding how, why, where, when, under what circumstances people agree to private contracts or even the content of the contract. Period. All government does here is create unintended consequences of a perverse nature by forcing people to do things against their will.

Finally, the few INDIVIDUALS that shall work for government (Assuming we spring for the nightwatchman state...the best of all available governments) they should work on private at-will contracts allowing the state to fire them. Since there will be so few state workers and so much wealth flowing through private hands finding a new well paying job won't be that hard at all - unless you really are a violent criminal offender.

patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 05:39 PM: Patrick:

Yes, due process applies to all civil actions, just not in exactly the same way.

patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 05:34 PM: Patrick:

The simple answer is that teachers have contracts and the contract evinces a "right" to payment for services under certain conditions, but a "property" right is not quite so simple to define. The degree to which a person has an expectation, based on some objective criteria typically is a determining factor and the more "vested' the expectation is, the more likely it is to be found a property right that is subject to due process protection.

That said, the contract the employee signed is subject to conditions; violating the criminal law is probably one the conditions that the government could use to break the agreement. Of course, this would still require the government to PROVE a criminal violation. And as I said, there is little incentive for an employee to agree to waive their due process rights even if it were possible. Did you read what I wrote in the last post?

Patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 05:27 PM: little p,

I should have been more clear, I was not suggesting that all private actions are immune to due process protections, of course we have civil cases. But are you suggesting that due process protections applies to ALL private actions?

Patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 05:22 PM: Did you attempt to answer this question,

That said, would you support a government employment contract that allowed the government to collect salary paid during a period of suspension if that individual was found guilty in a court of law?

- It seems you think such a contractual arrangement would violate due process. How? The penalty would not be exacted until after legal proceeding determined they are criminal.

Teachers would be subject to no more force in agreeing to that contract than taxpayers are forced to pay for that teachers salary. Though in fact, I would argue that taxpayers are subject to greater force since teachers have a choice to take a different job and taxpayers cannot choose to NOT pay taxes and still remain free.

Patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 05:20 PM: I'm just seeking someone who is more logically consistant and not prone to continually refining their arguments and changing stances to suit the positions at hand.

You said, "And, Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that an employee, working under the conditions that state employees function have a "property" right in their jobs, such that any effort to deprive them of this right means that the state must afford due process."

Could you explain how a government worker has a property right in their job?

patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 04:37 PM: Patrick:

And before you get you "legal advisor" to confirm what I said, one more thing; due process DOES apply in purely "private" actions. So, change your #2.

As an example, if an individual sues you civilly, you are entitled to both "notice and an opportunity" to be heard, and some substantive due process right to have a "fair" hearing or trial.

And, I hope you learned something, but it seems as all you learned was only what you wanted to; government bad, must limit..blah blah blah.

Try this one on for size though, it is the government, acting through the judiciary, that has defined your "due process rights" pursuant to the 5th and 14th, that got us where we are today, cause they ain't spelled out real well.

patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 04:17 PM: Patrick:

Now you're getting it; sorta.

I NEVER suggested that a government job is a right. I did say that the Supreme Court has decided that a "property" right exists in government worker's jobs under many circumstances, and that any action taken by the government that could deprive the employee/citizen of that right, can only be taken in accordance with the Due Process clause.

The answer to you question Patrick is that it can't happen that way; no teacher would have a reason to agree to effectively waive their Due Process Rights, which incidentally may not even be subject to waiver, just because someone wants to sanction them.

Think of it this way; why would a teacher, knowing that they are protected against having their pay stopped when the government alleges they did something wrong, willingly agree to that?

The ONLY reason I could think of where this might happen is where the government exerted some coercive pressure on them to do so. In that event, whatever "waiver" the teacher may give, would not typically be valid and the "agreement" would likely be considered, at best, a contract of adhesion, and void, or voidable, at the will of the teacher.

NoNo wrote on June 29, 2009 04:00 PM: I want to finish this as it bears to everything I have said on this post. I asked the officer if could have his supervisor's phone number which he immediatley asked me for my driver's license which I refused to give him and then he informed if did not produce any identifacation I would be spending the night in jail and bail may be required prior to my release. Pretty freindley huh, well he asked me to step outside of the home whier he hand cuffed me and began searching my peson. I asked him what he was looking for he said narcotics and paraphaniela. He then found my wallet and began looking threw my cards and found my company ID and my veterans Id card as well as my license. He then set me on the curb and called in my information and asked what I was doing with the old man. I told him that I volunteer and do chores for him and help him with his personall needs. He informed me that I had a not updated my current address as I have a home elswhere. The officer asked me I had drugs or stolen goods in my apartment and unregistered firearms in my home. He then asked me if had stolen drugs from this man or had purcashed drugs in the nieghbor hood. Meanwhile my wife came along asked what was going on and she nearley got the same treatment. My friend James who is Korean war veteran and very sick begged the officer too just forget the whole thing. He said officer"X" I was the only one helping him which Offcier X said filing false reports is a misdemeanor and the he looked at me and said something to the effect. get out of here.

Read All Comments