You have the right to drive while drunk, if it’s your job

And the US government will fight for you!

Feds to Trucking Company: You Cannot Fire Alcoholic Drivers

The federal government has sued a major trucking company for its firing of driver with an admitted alcohol abuse problem.

Alcoholism is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit maintains, and therefore employees cannot be prohibited even from driving 18 wheelers due to their histories of abuse.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the suit against the Old Dominion Freight Line trucking company on August 16, noted that while “an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA.”

Be sure to read the whole thing, and note that, while the company may not fire an alcoholic driver, it would still be liable for any damage or injury (or, God forbid, death) caused by the driver while hammered in a protected state of sobriety-deficiency. You can bet the company’s insurance agency has already sent them a notice of rate increase (if not outright cancellation) and that those increased costs will be passed along to Old Dominion’s customers, who will pass them along to their customers, until it reaches… us, the consumers.

But none of that matters to the EEOC, which will sue until you cry “uncle” to protect the God-given rights of rummies to drive 18-wheelers on the public highway.

Is it any wonder that the federal government comes in dead-last in a popularity survey?

via Zombie at PJM

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Lemonade stands! My God, they’re everywhere!!!

The news is grim, friends. I thought we had the threat contained to the Eastern seaboard (with that one tragic outbreak in Oregon), but it’s spread all the way to the heartland of America: a four-year old girl was operating a lemonade stand in Iowa… brace yourselves… without a license!

The horror:

Police closed down a lemonade stand in Coralville last week, telling its 4-year-old operator and her dad that she didn’t have a permit.

An officer told Abigail Krutsinger’s father Friday that she couldn’t run the stand as RAGBRAI bicyclers poured into Coralville.

I mean, think what would have happened if the police hadn’t been there to shut down this rogue preschooler’s citrusy speakeasy? No business permit? The city wouldn’t get its cut! The consequences of no health inspection? Are you willing to risk an outbreak of cooties??

Whew! That was close!

Thank God the regulatory state that our dedicated public servants bureaucratic betters were on the job.

PS: Have you noticed that all these accused lemonade bootleggers have been girls? I smell a conspiracy…

PPS: Iowa, eh? I wonder where the candidates stand on the Lemonade Menace? Romney probably has his finger in the wind even now.

LINKS: Prior posts in the War Against Lemonade Stands. E.D. Kain at Forbes has noticed the war, too, and brings the news that August 20th is National Lemonade Freedom Day.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

California Screamin’: cartoon version

California’s history and California’s present:

via Ed Driscoll, who provides some depressing context for the future.

Because, you know, secret ballots are bad things

From the Department of Government Stupidity: the federal government has threatened to sue four states should they dare to guarantee secret ballots in union elections:

The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina.

Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the “card check” process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections.

In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails.

Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional “to conserve state and federal resources.”

In other words, “play along and we won’t bankrupt you in court.”

I’m no expert in the Supremacy Clause, but labor relations have traditionally fallen under a state’s police powers, though that’s been eroded over at least the last 80 years, since the New Deal, as the Fed has claimed a greater role.

But, really, does anyone seriously think this is anything other than an attempt force card-check through via regulation, instead of legislation, where it’s dead in the water? This is another case of arrogance on the part of unelected bureaucrats against the elected representatives of the peoples of four states, and I hope these states fight it tooth-and-nail.

The regulatory dictatorship

Back when I took Civics (and back when they still taught it), I was told that the role of making laws was assigned to the legislatures, as their members were democratically elected by the people. In fact, Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Near as I can recall, “all” means “every darned bit of it,” including the authority to rewrite laws.

So where does the Environmental Protection Agency get off rewriting the Clean Air Act to include things never intended, such as carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources?

This video from Energy Tomorrow talks about this and other examples of EPA’s regulatory power grab. Did you know EPA is proposing ozone standards so stringent that even Yellowstone National Park can’t meet them? Watch, there’s more:

Be sure to read my Twitter-buddy Jazz Shaw’s post on this for other examples of how our EPA is turning into Leviathan, and a link to a paper by Energy Tomorrow that provides an extensive list of EPA’s questionable activities.

You might recall the Left screaming about how the Bush Administration was “politicizing science.” Perhaps, but I suspect it is much worse under the Obama administration. The Progressive Left sees the environmental laws as a way to take control of the economy via regulation, well-beyond the laudable goal of protecting the environment. And we shouldn’t be surprised that this new regulatory imperialism has taken place after Obama came to office; his “Climate Czar,” Carole Browner, is a former EPA chief and was at least closely affiliated with, if not a member of, the Socialist International.

What an odd coincidence.

In any event, EPA’s “reimagining” of its authorizing laws are clearly unconstitutional and the agency needs to be reined in. The new Republican majority will have a lot on its plate when the 112th Congress convenes next year, but, given the damage these new initiatives can do both to the economy and our constitutional order, they should make holding the agency accountable a priority.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)