Posted on 12/26/2015 9:59:25 AM PST by re_tail20
We told you early this year that right-to-work would likely come to Illinois but it would have nothing to do with what Governor Rauner or the General Assembly do in Springfield, and it would come locally. That is what happened last night in Lincolnshire, where the village board, by a five to one vote, made the town a right to work zone. This was not like other votes taken earlier this year by other towns, which were nonbinding expressions of policy. Lincolnshire actually enacted right-to-work, and it potentially sets a huge precedent.
You may recall that, in March, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued an opinion saying Illinois municipalities cannot do this. Unions and their supporters pounded their chests. “Madigan shoots down local right-to-work zones,†cheered Rich Miller, for example, calling it a “repudiation†of Rauner. “The Attorney General’s opinions on right to work zones and prevailing wage are confirmation of what we suspected from the outset,†said AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan.
Au contraire. The primary legal issue is a federal one so the opinion of the Attorney General means squat, and plenty of major legal authorities say Lisa was wrong. They include Richard Epstein, a prominent legal scholar, who wrote in detail about why Madigan was wrong.
What the opinion of the Attorney General does correctly say — and she will probably be held to this — is that Federal law preempts state law on the matter. That is important because it means litigation will be in Federal courts, i.e., real courts and not Illinois state courts run by political hacks.
The legal issues are complex and the outcome is not certain. Labor and Lisa Madigan will challenge the action by Lincolnshire. But the bottom line is that the village is in excellent shape legally and their case...
(Excerpt) Read more at rebootillinois.com ...
A message to Free Republic Editors and Moderators
Something has gone wrong with your editing software.
Whenever I click on “Preview”, the text shows up with distortions where quotation marks and apostraphes are supposed to be. To “restore” the text to “readable” status, I had to do some various editing here and there. When I post this, the above quotation marks may be distorted too.
You may probably be aware of this problem and are trying to fix it. I hope I won’t have to do it anymore in future posts.
It’s pathetic and a major turn-off for this site. What are they doing with all that cash they beg for? Hire a high school kid to figure it out already.
Lisa Madigan is bought and paid for by her daddy.
Period.
L
States’ rights writ small. I like it.
True conservatives should be opposed to this.
” The primary legal issue is a federal one so the opinion of the Attorney General means squat, “
True conservatives would take a ‘states rights’ position that the state is free to make bad decisions in areas that haven’t been delegated to the feds. And right to work laws (and lack thereof) have traditionally been recognized by the feds as a state issue. (Exceptions for railroad and airline workers and a few other narrowly defined exception.
And municipal governments are creatures of the state government, which can define their powers.
The problem you describe is not new and I believe someone is working on it.
I have another problem, which may be with my computer. When I click on the title and go to the article, part of it is missing, always on the right side of the page at the beginning of the article.
If I refresh the page, the missing words appear.
Try pasting the passage into Notepad first, then from there copy and paste the passage into FR. You are evidently using a browser that does not use ASCII characters or else are copying from a website that uses non ASCII characters.
See my post below for a solution, that any high school kid would know.
If that is the case, why is it a relatively new issue on FR? I mean, new as is not a problem a year ago. It really does turn me off from attempting to read some threads/posts. What changed?
I do that to eliminate line breaks when posting at other sites.
I’ll try that on FR next time I make a post.
I’m using Safari. Also, this has been true the last few times I’ve posted from various websites.
Word Processing attributes seem to be one of Apple’s few weak points, or areas of low emphasis.
Probably because more websites are using type fonts that do not directly correspond to ASCII characters. Copy pasted directly from those sites picks up extraneous stuff that shows up when you paste it into FR.
Lisa Madigan is bought and paid for by her daddy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People who live in more normal states, have no idea.
By the way, who do we have to challenge Mr. Rino for U.S. Senate and does he/she have a realistic chance?
Former U. S. Rep. Joe Walsh was once considering it, I once heard. But he’s the only one so far.
I’ll do that for my next article.
No one and no.
I’ll either leave that spot on the ballot blank or vote for Duckworth.
Yea, I said it.
L
In this state, I am not worried about states rights. Citizens rights are long gone here in Illinois. A person watching over an elderly person now has to pay union dues as a state employee. The governor and legislator cannot lower a pension plan for out future years worked. So pensions are growing faster than the state can possibly pay for them. Elected officials can get full pensions in a few years.
This place is a union grab-for-all. We have Detroit brewing here. The citizens of Illinois have lost all rights. So, the states rights you seek to preserve are not worth anything here.
Thank you. It just seemed so odd as it appeared out of the blue.
"What the opinion of the Attorney General does correctly say  and she will probably be held to this  is that Federal law preempts state law on the matter."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
There is a major problem with the above statement concerning federal labor laws preempting state labor laws imo. Politically correct, pro-unconstitutionally big federal government interpretations of the Contitutions Supremacy Clause (6.2) aside, please consider the following.
Only those federal protections which are reasonably based on rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect can trump state laws. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions.
” 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” - Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
” 2. There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other.
3. The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.” - United States v. Cruikshank, 1875
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” - United States v. Butler, 1936.
And in the case of state right to work laws, note that the states have never amended the Constitution to give the feds the specific power to address INTRAstate commerce issues. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So the feds have no constitutional authority to interfere with the 10th Amendment-protected, right-to-work laws of any state imo.
And the reason that federal labor laws exist is this imo. The corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is not doing its job to protect the states from vote-winning federal government overreach as the Founding States had intended for the Senate to do, the Senate wrongly passing unconstitutional bills that interfere with intrastate right-to-work laws in this example.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators who try to win votes by passing unconstitutonal labor laws along with it.
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.