4 ms·

You can't violate the Constitution on private property.

by gasull 8y ago

tallanvor 8y ago
Private companies acting in a private capacity cannot violate the constitution. The limits of the Constitution apply to government employees (or even private employees performing a service contracted by a government agency) whether they are on public or private property.
- eesmith 8y ago
  The major exception being slavery, that is, a private company with slave labor, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", violates the 13th amendment, with penalties set by Congressional legislation. There also have been cases where the courts have treated private companies as state actors. See https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-consti...
  - nybble41 8y ago
    That is not an exception. The 13th Amendment prohibits the government from legally classifying a person as someone else's property (with the one noted exception). A private citizen treating a person as a slave may be guilty of kidnapping, assault, battery, or any number of other crimes, but they are not violating the 13th Amendment—only the government can do that, by granting legal recognition to the victim's status as a slave. If a private company is acting in ways normally prohibited to private actors, on the state's authority, then they are effectively acting as an extension of the state. The state obviously cannot grant a private company the authority to do something which both private actors and the state itself are prohibited from doing. However, it's still the government, not the private company, which is bound by the Constitution.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      Your interpretation seems to differ from that of legal sources. Quoting from the first paragraph of the ACLU link I gave: "With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities." Quoting from https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/USCERD2000/cerd-us05b.htm https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/North... : "the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude encompasses both governmental and private action. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate private conduct under sec. 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides that "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). Such power includes determining what constitutes the "badges and incidents of slavery and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation." Quoting from https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/private-discrimination https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs... : "The Thirteenth Amendment is one of the few constitutional provisions that directly implicates private conduct. That amendment, the first of the three "civil war amendments," flatly bans slavery and involuntary servitude. It acts directly upon private entities; slaves were owned by private businesses and individuals. The Thirteenth Amendment, however, has not been interpreted to provide a significant source of constitutional proscription against acts of private discrimination." Quoting from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirtee... "The Thirteenth Amendment, unlike most provisions in the Constitution, is self-executing, in that it directly reaches-even without action by Congress- conduct by private individuals (slave holders)."
      - nybble41 8y ago
        Yeah, that happens a lot. There's no need to treat the 13th Amendment as a unique case. The default state under natural law is that there is no such thing as legitimate involuntary slavery; treating anyone as a slave without their consent infringes on their inalienable rights. As such, there was never any need to ban private parties from holding slaves; the slave holder's only tenuous claim to legitimacy comes from the fact that the government takes their side, recognizing and enforcing their claims while simultaneously ignoring the natural rights of their slaves. I suspect the convoluted arguments proposed for why the 13th Amendment must be unique are a direct consequence of the tortured logic needed to reconcile the institution of slavery with the principles on which the Constitution was based. Faced with a choice between acknowledging the government's role in legitimizing slavery or else arguing that it was merely a "private" matter which the government had thus far refrained from regulating they chose the narrative which minimized their share of the blame. This is akin to how the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses have been perverted to justify all manner of legislation outside the narrowly defined scope of the federal government's enumerated powers.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  This is true. And this is why the TSA is ostensibly restricted by the bill that of rights.

You can't violate the Constitution on private property.

by gasull 8y ago

You can't violate the Constitution on private property.

Private companies acting in a private capacity cannot violate the constitution. The limits of the Constitution apply to government employees (or even private employees performing a service contracted by a government agency) whether they are on public or private property.

eesmith 8y ago
The major exception being slavery, that is, a private company with slave labor, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", violates the 13th amendment, with penalties set by Congressional legislation. There also have been cases where the courts have treated private companies as state actors. See https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/column-applying-consti...
- nybble41 8y ago
  That is not an exception. The 13th Amendment prohibits the government from legally classifying a person as someone else's property (with the one noted exception). A private citizen treating a person as a slave may be guilty of kidnapping, assault, battery, or any number of other crimes, but they are not violating the 13th Amendment—only the government can do that, by granting legal recognition to the victim's status as a slave. If a private company is acting in ways normally prohibited to private actors, on the state's authority, then they are effectively acting as an extension of the state. The state obviously cannot grant a private company the authority to do something which both private actors and the state itself are prohibited from doing. However, it's still the government, not the private company, which is bound by the Constitution.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Your interpretation seems to differ from that of legal sources. Quoting from the first paragraph of the ACLU link I gave: "With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities." Quoting from https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/USCERD2000/cerd-us05b.htm https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/North... : "the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude encompasses both governmental and private action. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate private conduct under sec. 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides that "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). Such power includes determining what constitutes the "badges and incidents of slavery and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation." Quoting from https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/private-discrimination https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs... : "The Thirteenth Amendment is one of the few constitutional provisions that directly implicates private conduct. That amendment, the first of the three "civil war amendments," flatly bans slavery and involuntary servitude. It acts directly upon private entities; slaves were owned by private businesses and individuals. The Thirteenth Amendment, however, has not been interpreted to provide a significant source of constitutional proscription against acts of private discrimination." Quoting from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECTS/FTRIALS/conlaw/thirtee... "The Thirteenth Amendment, unlike most provisions in the Constitution, is self-executing, in that it directly reaches-even without action by Congress- conduct by private individuals (slave holders)."
    - nybble41 8y ago
      Yeah, that happens a lot. There's no need to treat the 13th Amendment as a unique case. The default state under natural law is that there is no such thing as legitimate involuntary slavery; treating anyone as a slave without their consent infringes on their inalienable rights. As such, there was never any need to ban private parties from holding slaves; the slave holder's only tenuous claim to legitimacy comes from the fact that the government takes their side, recognizing and enforcing their claims while simultaneously ignoring the natural rights of their slaves. I suspect the convoluted arguments proposed for why the 13th Amendment must be unique are a direct consequence of the tortured logic needed to reconcile the institution of slavery with the principles on which the Constitution was based. Faced with a choice between acknowledging the government's role in legitimizing slavery or else arguing that it was merely a "private" matter which the government had thus far refrained from regulating they chose the narrative which minimized their share of the blame. This is akin to how the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses have been perverted to justify all manner of legislation outside the narrowly defined scope of the federal government's enumerated powers.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stochastic_monk 8y ago
This is true. And this is why the TSA is ostensibly restricted by the bill that of rights.