Thread: American Jobs Act

What You’re Not Hearing About the New Jobs Bill: It Overrides State’s Rights

Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:01pm

With the introduction of The American Jobs Act, Americans may soon witness a rerun of the Obama healthcare struggle. Much like its predecessor, president Obama’s newest bill contains certain provisions that would appear to benefit those who wrote the bill more than those for whom the bill was supposedly written.

For instance, buried deep, deep on page 133 of the bill, it states:

SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.

(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.

Come again? Under the bill’s authority, states are not immune from federal prosecution if they “violate” the act. In the event this bill passes, it will override a state’s sovereign authority as defined and protected under the 11th amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

By what authority does a bill that seeks to “create jobs” and concern itself with things such as “payroll relief” and “teacher stabilization” have the right to override the 11th amendment?

It gets even better:

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act [emphasis added].


Any state that receives Federal assistance under the direction of bill automatically forfeits its sovereign immunity. Should an employe of the act seek federal prosecution, the state must abide.

They will literally make a Federal case out of it. The bill continues:

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.

c) Remedies Against State Officials- An official of a State may be sued in the official capacity of the official by any employee or applicant for employment who has complied with the applicable procedures of this Act, for relief that is authorized under this Act.

(d) Remedies Against the United States and the States- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action or administrative proceeding against the United States or a State for a violation of this Act, remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity.

It would seem that The American Jobs Act was drafted in order to achieve statist goals rather than create jobs. The authority of individual states is all but thrown to the side.

Much like the healthcare struggle, provisions such as the ones mentioned in the above will incite a strong reaction. As well it should–the stakes are too high.

Dick Morris said it well when he wrote:

It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them.

The American Jobs Act may or may not create jobs. It will, however, lessen and diminish the individuality of the states.

“Liberty once lost is lost forever,” John Adams said.

I have not tracked this yet, where is this legislation now? is it in senate or House?

They will vote it doen in the house, as they should but they will vote on it.

http://video.foxnews.com/?playlist_i...ylist_id=86925

thoughts?

Job creator fined for creating too many jobs. Prohibited from opening new offices by regulators...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ny_people.html

Coke CEO says USA sucks....

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/071f9...#axzz1Z6ZMSClW


Coca-Cola now sees the US becoming a less friendly business environment than China, its chief executive has revealed, citing political gridlock and an antiquated tax structure as reasons its home market has become less competitive.

Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chief executive, said “in many respects” it was easier doing business in China, comparing the country with a well-managed company. “You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other,” he told the Financial Times.
Mr Kent also pointed to Brazil as an example of an emerging economy that is making itself attractive to investment in ways that the US once did.

“They’re learning very fast, these countries,” he said. “In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.”Mr Kent argued that US states did not compete enough with each other to attract businesses while Chinese provinces were clamouring to draw investment from international companies. Meanwhile, he said, China’s budget discipline and rapid economic growth made it an appealing place to set up operations.

Of course it is easier to do business in China. There are less people you need to bribe, and it is much simpler bride, none of this campaign contribution/lobbyist system like here. There is much less environmental or other regulation, since there is little concern about air/water pollution or health and safety. Not to mention billions of people Coke can rot the teeth of who aren't at least slight aware.