You are Here:
Public stores should not be able to violate inalienable rights

Author (Read 6322 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

 

Dr. Naomi Hunter

  • Global Moderator
  • InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 158
    Posts
Interesting response after this first statement:

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1moe8g/eli5_does_the_us_constitution_apply_on_private/

"The constitution governs the behavior of the government of the United States. The end. You can freely kick someone off your property for having an opinion or a gun, if you don't like either. The laws merely state that congress cannot pass a law limiting Free Speech or the Right to Bear Arms. But any private entity, including an individual or business, can make their own rules for their own property, ask you to leave for not following said rules, and have you arrested for trespassing if you refuse to leave.

I absolutely agree, people seem to think that the Bill of Rights makes them invincible. It only regards the creation of laws, nothing else."

Actually, it's not the end. This is the general rule, but it is much more complicated than that. There are four doctrines which allow a private party to be deemed a state actor, namely the public function test, the state compulsion test, the nexus test, and in the case of prejudgment attachments, a joint action test. See e.g. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 939 (1982).

Pursuant to the Public Function test, an individual effectively becomes a state actor if the State delegated to him or her a power “traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 157 (1978), Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 469-70 (1953). Such powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State include conducting an election, Adams, 345 U.S. at 469-70 (1953), serving as trustee of park traditionally operated by municipality, Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 301-302 (1966), operating a company-town, Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), and educating maladjusted high school students, Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 842 (1982).

Pursuant to the State Compulsion test, an individual effectively becomes a state actor if the State has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982), Adickes v. S.H. Kress and Company, 398 U.S. 144, 169-170 (1970). “Mere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the State responsible for those initiatives under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004-1005.

Lastly, pursuant to the Symbiotic Relationship or Nexus test, an individual effectively becomes a state actor if the State and the individual are intertwined in a symbiotic relationship that makes them so significantly involved with one another as to treat the individual’s actions as that of the State. Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974). The proper focus under this test is on the connection between the State and the action, not the connection between the State and the actor. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982).

Ultimately, these determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, but if an otherwise private party satisfies any one of these tests, then they will be deemed a state in which case they could violate someone's constitutional rights regardless of whether they are on private property.

It's not about private property versus public property. It's about who is effectuating the constitutional deprivation and whether that person is a state actor.

Also, there are some laws which hold private persons accountable for the deprivation of constitutional rights. For example, 42 USC § 1985 allows for liability if two or more people conspire to deprive a person of a constitutional right. This statute was one of several enacted by the federal government to put an end to the Jim Crow Era.

Hope this helps."
 

Re: Public stores should not be able to violate inalienable rights
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2020, 12:46:29 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 8028
    Posts
It might be private property . . .
BUT its with Public Access

That changes things . . .



Last Edit by Gladstone
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

 

Powered by EzPortal