Re: Response to Conanylizer

More | Report Post

Just one more point I would like to make concerning articles passed for
public reason.

Rawls thought that the Supreme Court's deliberations and opinions about
the meaning of the United States Constitution exemplified the idea of
public reason.

Public reason is addressed to the entire public. Public reason should be
free if the public is to become enlightened - that is, if citizens are to
rely on their own reason without the guidance of another.

My question for you is, why is a law passed for public reason relying on
the reasoning of a judge?

It is my belief that the only reason public reason is now relying on the
reasoning of judges is because such laws are being contravened by private
agreement. When judges rule that employees may agree to let their
employer divide the customer's tip among all those in the chain of
service, such rulings disregard that fact "Any one may waive the
advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit. But a law established
for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.

I also beleive that our constitution clearly supports the idea that
customers, and not judges, should be determining who their tip is paid,
given or left for. Rulings that suggest that tips are the property of all
those in the chain or service are rulings which clearly disregard the
public's constitutional liberty to determine such matter for themselves.
As such, rulings that suggest that the customer's private property, his
tip, may be shared among all those in the chain of service are rulings
which totally disgregard the fact that laws passed for public reason are
intended to uphold the constitutional rights of the public, not strip
them of such rights.

On 4/27/09, George wrote:
> Why do we have labor laws passed for public reason if as you say, no
> one cares? It doesn't make sense to me sharwinston. Apparently the
> public does care.
>
> California labor code clearly intructs that gratuities are hereby
> declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom
> they are paid, given or left for.
>
> What I would like to know is how a judge can rule that gratuities are
> the the property of all workers in the chain of service when Califoria
> labor code specifically instructs that gratuities may be paid, given or
> left for an employee, singular? Because the labor code was passed for
> public reason, it is my contention that judges should not be defining
> who the customer's tip is paid, given or left for. It is my belief that
> California labor code 351, specifically instructs that the right to
> determine who gratuities are paid, given or left for is a matter solely
> to be determed by the public and that the public's reasons for tipping,
> which would include determining who they tip, should not be interpreted
> or assumed by the courts.
>
> Wouldn't the fact that such code is passed for public reason suggest
> that judges should not be imposing their own personal views on the
> interpretation of such a law? Wouldn't the fact that such code is
> passed for public reason suggest that the public, rather than the
> courts, should be deciding who their tip is paid, given or left for?
>
>
>
>
> On 4/25/09, sharwinston wrote:
>> nobody cares, man.... nobody!
>>
>> On 4/23/09, George wrote:
>>> Well no wonder why I become rude and agressive.
>>>
>>> Everyone seems to want to dik with me instead of discussing the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> It's like you are all afraid to actually discuss the issue for
>> fear
>>> you'll look like the terd.
>>>
>>> What an honor to meet such a mind screwwer. You must have a really
>>> high IQ. I am glad to see you are putting your godlike mental
>>> prowess to such a good use.
>>>