[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8393

File: 1608083097576.png (971.63 KB, 1269x1024, 1269:1024, a.png) ImgOps Google

I work many professions, but one involves punching a clock.  And there are American government rules about my schedule and compensation that my corporation must follow.  And I got to thinking -- why?

A bit of research indicates it goes back to The New Deal, so I've began reading a book on that program to try to understand.  While picking out a book -- I usually begin with general overviews -- I see those that are not simply fact books tend to be something like "The New Deal: America's Great Promise" or "The Truth about The New Deal: How it prolonged the depression and continues to cripple American progress."  Usually, if a political program survives a generation or two, it falls into the background.  But in 82 years, I'm not sure how much labor and general welfare issues have.  My workplace requires me to view training on how unions are unnecessary and unreliable, and I can assume attempting to organize would result in termination for failing to follow my training.

I'm posting here so ponies or animals can vent their opinions, I guess.  I am both a laborer and creative type (suppose you can assume I'm one because the other doesn't pay rent, but I won't say it).  Anyway, I think...I'm kinda open minded at this point.  So what do you all think about The New Deal?

 No.8397

>>8393
>So what do you all think about The New Deal?
It was an usurpation by the federal government of the several states' rights to regulate intra-state commerce.

 No.8398

Big problem here. It's definitional. "The New Deal" was a gigantic grab bag of an immense, contradictory variety of programs and policies that in terms of modern economics range from "no brainers" to "holy f*&k what have you morons been smoking".

Interesting context at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Mainstream_economics_interpretation (and really the whole page)

To pick two examples personally, on the one hand the wage and price controls enacted during the New Deal was a disaster. Not only was it a usurpation of state and local government control by the federal administration as well as a violation of regular peoples' economic freedom, but it additionally meant a gigantic waste of resources. People were starving in the U.S., yet policies kept prices from dropping to where they could afford to feed themselves. Terrible.

On the flip side, the banking system was a basket case. It had to get rescued. And it was rescued. People needed to be able to borrow and invest again, and the federal government stepped in so that it could happen. I'm glad.

 No.8400

>>8393
>termination for failing to follow my training.
If you live in the US, it is illegal for an employer to fire an employee for trying to organize a union.

 No.8404

File: 1608165344406.png (605.24 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, a.png) ImgOps Google

>>8397
That was the court's initial response, that the New Deal programs took too much liberty with the Commerce Clause and had to be struck down.  Roosevelt responded to the rebuff: “[The commerce clause was written] in the horse-and-buggy age ... since that time … we have developed an entirely different philosophy."

Which I suppose is the philosophy which now looks at the constitution as a Living Document -- the text may be mostly ignored if one interprets with a liberal spirit.  I would take you reject this philosophy.

>>8398
>from "no brainers" to "holy f*&k what have you morons been smoking".
The book I'm working on now, which I take to be a mostly objective text, does say many of the programs were created in haste.  While I think the divide in people's attitude involves more the motivation of government to help in New Deal ways, mostly how people come down in capitalism/socalism and big government/small.  If someone favors the 'why' then it seems there's still much feedback on the 'how' of New Deal policies.

>People were starving in the U.S., yet policies kept prices from dropping to where they could afford to feed themselves. Terrible.

Yeah, that Grapes of Wrath stuff is such a weird thing.  I still don't quite get why a surplus can't mean Grapes for everyone.

>banking system
While many might deny this role of the government, ensuring deposits and smoothing the reopening of banks succeeded, I think.

>>8400
>it is illegal for an employer to fire an employee for trying to organize a union.

Well, everyone's job is basically making the corporate powers happy, and when they express a desire, one is paid to comply.  So I expect they would word it in documentation something else -- "inappropriate behavior", "not adhering to our core values" -- and not mention the word union.

 No.8407

File: 1608171506852.jpg (45.07 KB, 602x567, 86:81, cat-sheep.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8404
> I would take you reject this philosophy.
Yes.  This 'Living Constitution' nonsense is how we ended up in the mess we're in now with political polarization of the judicial nomination.

>>8404
> So I expect they would word it in documentation something else -- "inappropriate behavior", "not adhering to our core values" -- and not mention the word union.
Yes, unfortunately corporations do often get away with breaking the law by disguising their violations.

 No.8408

That's interesting. My own research pointed specifically to the Fair Labor Standard's Act by Senator Hugo Black and prior to that the Adamson Act and prior to that President Grant's Proclamation 206.

 No.8409

>>8407
Now, at some level I believe if you're going to make a law, it should be literally followed.  (I've reluctantly realized that's not how stuff works for most authorities, so now I look at punishments to discover significance.)

Do you favor strict constitutionality for its own sake, or do you think the founders were able to produce a special document that ought be followed more exactly than other laws?

You are correct, I think, that the founders didn't intend the Court to have Judicial Review and hoped for a submissive Executive, preferring Legislative supremacy.

>corporations do often get away with breaking the law
Yeah, I guess I don't know for sure.  But my sense is a person like me can't afford the legal costs of bringing a large corporation to court.  Law is for corporations fighting corporations.  The exception, I suppose, is if some institution took my case as part of a social change movement (eg. Rosa Parks and the NAACP), but that's unlikely for any given individual.

>>8408
Hello, Cheeky Crab.  The 1938 Act is the one I'm mostly thinking of, but the preliminary legislations probably helped smooth the way a bit, too.

 No.8411

File: 1608237492802.jpg (143.35 KB, 1000x932, 250:233, 1520020337875.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8409
>Do you favor strict constitutionality for its own sake
I think the Constitution should be interpreted accordingly to its original public meaning.  I favor this because I think it is the most legitimate way of interpreting a legal document.

>or do you think the founders were able to produce a special document that ought be followed more exactly than other laws?
I think it should be followed exactly the same as other laws.  Of course, the Constitution is more vague than most other laws, which makes interpretation more difficult.
I do think that our Constitution is an exceptionally excellent document, but that doesn't affect how it should be interpreted.

>You are correct, I think, that the founders didn't intend the Court to have Judicial Review
Huh?  I never said that.  I think that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.

> preferring Legislative supremacy.
The powers of the Legislature are limited and enumerated by the Constitution.  "An unconstitutional act is not a law; ... it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

 No.8413

>>8411
>original public meaning
OK.

> I think that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.

OK, I don't have enough information to offer another comment.

-

I was reading a book that explained two systems: rule by law and rule of law.  Rule by law is where laws apply to common folk.  Rule of law is where law applies to even authorities.  Rule by law, I understand, people like rules, however authorities may still punish and act at their pleasure.  Rule of law would seem to only occur when the highest authorities happen to do what the law indicates as proper.

America, I think, tries to do a little better 'rule of law' by separating powers.  When a King is also judge in the case of whether his actions are legal, unless he has some kind of major change of heart over time, probably his actions will be found legal.  (And I suppose respectfully they are, King is King and what he says goes, so I suppose you must be able to allow an outside observer to make the required judgement.)

You seem to have some questions about American government confining its own powers, specifically the federal government allowing itself to regulate intra-state business.  Certainly the American government has been more modest over time.  It has been closer to its constitution in time.  Is there anything that could be changed to make America more 'rule of law,' at least in the areas mentioned.  (You may take America to be excellent in other areas, I don't know).


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]