What’s This Janus Thing About? NEW! Janus Public Policy Backgrounder #StandWithWorkershttps://t.co/v0qKstk5E6 — RI Center for Freedom⚓️ (@RICenterFreedom) February 23, 2018 ← A Difference of Opinion on Preparedness Maybe with Compromise Something Like This Wouldn’t Happen → guest Mike, I know you and the Koch’s have a lot riding on the Anus case, but where exactly is the “First Amendment right not to be forced to pay for political spending they disagree with”? I don’t see any abridging of free speech here. Is there another First Amendment (other than the Bill of Rights) that you could be referencing? Rhett Hardwick The problem arises when the union “taxes” you to fund political speech with which you do not agree. guest I understand the party line, but the fact of the matter is you have a 1st Amendment right to say you disagree with what the union is doing with your money. Sorry, but there’s no 1st Amendment protections mandating agreement with everything your union does. Would these “constitutional patriots” like to expand the Amendment to include that? The irony is these “constitutional patriots” are reading more than what is actually in the amendment. Interestingly, it’s many of same folks who gloss over “well regulated militia” in the prior amendment. Maybe “Mike” could sponsor a reading comprehension workshop for them? Rhett Hardwick How about the idea that you just don’t like being “unionized”. Who do you work for,, the union, or the employer? A little “reading comprehension” for you RE: the Second Amendment. Militia, or no, the 2nd Amendment does not create the right to “keep and bear arms”. It does say that the right “shall not be infringed”. The founders did not believe that the government granted “certain inalienable rights” rather government “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed”.The “right” spoken of is considered a human right, for want of a better term, preceding the existence of a government. The 2nd Amendment only safeguards it from the government. The “founders” knew that the first act of a tyrant would be to disarm the citizens. A bit of historical reflection will show the accuracy of their thinking, Russia, Germany, England to some extent (things have improved there since disarmament in the days of the cavaliers and roundheads) Almost all European “gun free” countries result from laws passed in the time of kings and princes (tyrants?) Rhett Hardwick More historical reflection will explain the reference to a “well regulated militia”. these were considered to be the “governor’s army”. At the time of the Constitution there was a fear that the Federal Government would invade and subjugate the individual states. assurance was required. guest Interesting, you are willing to concede that the militia clause should be “interpreted in light of the moral, political, and cultural climate of the age of interpretation.”, but don’t apply the same logic to the rest of the sentence, which must apparently must be absolute. The quote, by the way is from Thurgood Marshall. guest I’ve got no problem with anyone not wanting to become unionized, my problem is fraudulently connecting it to the 1st Amendment. I noticed you don’t comment on it either. I must have hit a nerve with the 2nd Amendment, but I find it interesting that you minimize the opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment (“Militia, or no…”) in favor of your interpretation of the meaning of the rest of the sentence.