Posted on 01/24/2008 10:32:38 AM PST by SmithL
Under California law, facial tattoos and piercing are legal. Does that mean employers have to allow them?
"The state legislature cannot reject or modify a California state proposition approved by the voters."
So if the voters approved a referendum bringing back slavery, the state legislature would be required to write the law.
No action would be required of the legislature at that point. The text of the referendum would be automatically enrolled into State law.
I would think that at some point the U.S. Constitution would come into play. I guess I am ignorant of California law after all if they can get away with violating Article VI, Section 2.
Your ignorance is not limited to California law. The 13th Amendment, not Article VI, would be violated by your hypothetical referendum and it would be struck down accordingly in a Federal court. However, if the 13th Amendment hadn't been passed (Let's say that slavery was banned by an act of Congress instead), then that pesky 10th Amendment would protect such a referendum.
Utterly false. California is an "at will" employment state.
Read a book.
Marijuana isn’t prescribed.
Please quote the text of the referendum that authorizes pot sales. Please quote the text of the referendum that requires employers to provide jobs to potheads.
Read a paper. People get loony “unjust termination” decisions all the time in this State.
I will, right after you quote the section of State law that authorizes the sale of wood ear mushrooms.
I would appeal on the basis of the American Disabilities Act.
No cites, natuarally.
“On August 3, 2006, the California Supreme Court decided Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., No. S 124494, and held that the term “employment is at will,” contained in an offer letter which was read, accepted, and signed by an employee “contained no ambiguity, patent or latent, in its termination provisions.” Language in the letter defining “at will” to mean the employer had the right to terminate employment “at any time” did not create ambiguity as to whether “cause” for termination was required.”
http://www.atlanticlegal.org/case.php?cid=1053
Poor you.
Federal law? Federal law doesn't recognize pot as medicine.
The referendum does not authorize pot sales. The referendum does not require employers to provide jobs to potheads.
That’s why you’re squirming.
But the disablity might get you by.
A real disability wouldn’t be treatable by pot.
Not true. I think you are misinformed. Start with stomach cancer and work your way around the net. Most of these people are too sick to work, however.
The position of the FDA is that marijuana should not be prescribed for use as a medication.
I have experience with medical mj in my own family. The feds are overriding the state law, which is unconstitutional for my money. Even if it's constitutional, no one can tell me that it's not helpful to patients in pain. I saw it with my own eyes over a fiver year period.
When the law tries to contradict reality, the law is wrong.
You mean like the American Disabilities Act?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.