As some of the Americans on this forum may know, Ben Roethlisberger, Quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers has been accused of rape for the second time. He has been suspended by the National Football League for the first 4-6 weeks of the season without pay.
I got into a rather heated argument about this today on another forum and was wondering what the reaction would be here. He has been suspended for violating the NFL's Code of Conduct without a trial by jury.
~ Law Enforcement representatives will conduct briefings each year for all coaches, club personnel and players. The content of these briefings will include drinking and driving laws and enforcement, possession of firearms, domestic abuse, assault and battery, gang related activities and other matters of significance.
~ Every team must implement programs to ensure club compliance with drinking and driving laws.
~ Expansion of counseling and treatment programs are mandatory for all club employees, players and coaches who violate the policy.
~ Patterns of discipline in the NFL's rocky past were hindered by ties to the Constitutional convention of "innocent until proven guilty". Changes to the disciplinary aspects of the code of personal conduct allow for disciplinary action to be taken at the time of arrest, rather than waiting for a guilty plea or verdict.
This is part of the Code of Conduct which every player must sign on to in order to play in the NFL. It does away completely with the concept enshrined in the US Constitution of 'innocent until proven guilty' and puts any player at the mercy of the Commissioner and the Court of Public Opinion.
My question is this: Should an employer based in the United States of America be allowed to trump the Constitution and Constitutional rights? As far as I am concerned I am an American first and an employee second. I think employers have been allowed to run roughshod over individual liberties for far too long. (Yes, this is an offshoot of the pedo thread).
I got into a rather heated argument about this today on another forum and was wondering what the reaction would be here. He has been suspended for violating the NFL's Code of Conduct without a trial by jury.
~ Law Enforcement representatives will conduct briefings each year for all coaches, club personnel and players. The content of these briefings will include drinking and driving laws and enforcement, possession of firearms, domestic abuse, assault and battery, gang related activities and other matters of significance.
~ Every team must implement programs to ensure club compliance with drinking and driving laws.
~ Expansion of counseling and treatment programs are mandatory for all club employees, players and coaches who violate the policy.
~ Patterns of discipline in the NFL's rocky past were hindered by ties to the Constitutional convention of "innocent until proven guilty". Changes to the disciplinary aspects of the code of personal conduct allow for disciplinary action to be taken at the time of arrest, rather than waiting for a guilty plea or verdict.
This is part of the Code of Conduct which every player must sign on to in order to play in the NFL. It does away completely with the concept enshrined in the US Constitution of 'innocent until proven guilty' and puts any player at the mercy of the Commissioner and the Court of Public Opinion.
My question is this: Should an employer based in the United States of America be allowed to trump the Constitution and Constitutional rights? As far as I am concerned I am an American first and an employee second. I think employers have been allowed to run roughshod over individual liberties for far too long. (Yes, this is an offshoot of the pedo thread).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat