That trump is making federal workers work without being paid is akin to indentured servitude. Economic slavery so to speak. Nowhere in our National Constitution can I find a clause that would allow such a practice. This smacks of a constitutional violation and since the shutdown of government which makes no pay available is caused by the appointed president it seems the buck would stop with him being the culprit. If I were a federal worker I would file a lawsuit against the appointed president for a violation of my rights to be paid for my labor. the case is not difficult to prove since the appointed president took blame for shutting down the government and then ordered the workers back to work with no pay.
I am no lawyer but it seems to me that the common sense of working for nothing under duress of losing one's job cannot be legal nor ethical. What am I missing here that would protect a tyrannical act from an appointed president from being charged for making citizens work for nothing? Isn't that the very definition of tyranny, "an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act",https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny. Surely our national constitution does not allow for a strategy of tyranny to overrule democratic principles especially in peacetime. There is an accepted process for governance in our nation that has been battle tested and found acceptable so holding our nation and too many of our federal workers hostage as a negotiating tool cannot be allowed to stand.
This is not some vague or conspiratorial argument I am making here. Forcing citizens to endure the hardship of a manufactured crisis from the appointed president is on it's face dishonest and in my mind illegal. We survived the cruel and brutish effects of slavery in our nation to the African American culture for over 244 years and now to go back and implement a policy that begins to mirror those awful days is not only now unAmerican but throughout the world largely eradicated. I know our Supreme Court only sees it's mission to adjudicate cases brought before it's bench but there has to come a time when they can agree to be extrajudicial and make plain that no attempts to indenture our citizens will be allowed!
I am no lawyer but it seems to me that the common sense of working for nothing under duress of losing one's job cannot be legal nor ethical. What am I missing here that would protect a tyrannical act from an appointed president from being charged for making citizens work for nothing? Isn't that the very definition of tyranny, "an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act",https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny. Surely our national constitution does not allow for a strategy of tyranny to overrule democratic principles especially in peacetime. There is an accepted process for governance in our nation that has been battle tested and found acceptable so holding our nation and too many of our federal workers hostage as a negotiating tool cannot be allowed to stand.
This is not some vague or conspiratorial argument I am making here. Forcing citizens to endure the hardship of a manufactured crisis from the appointed president is on it's face dishonest and in my mind illegal. We survived the cruel and brutish effects of slavery in our nation to the African American culture for over 244 years and now to go back and implement a policy that begins to mirror those awful days is not only now unAmerican but throughout the world largely eradicated. I know our Supreme Court only sees it's mission to adjudicate cases brought before it's bench but there has to come a time when they can agree to be extrajudicial and make plain that no attempts to indenture our citizens will be allowed!
No comments:
Post a Comment