3 ms·
Right, what limiting principle makes government restricted areas like Area 51 or even Federal/State/Local legislature floors not violate the “fundamental right
by bhupy 6y ago
Right, what limiting principle makes government restricted areas like Area 51 or even Federal/State/Local legislature floors not violate the “fundamental right to travel” and “speech of any kind”, that also renders resident-restricted public parks a violation of those same rights?
Also, do the merits of the case change if the plaintiff was a white store owner? Why is their race relevant?
- rmk 6y agoThere are several plaintiffs of many races, including past residents of Palo Alto who have moved away. But one of the arguments being made in the complaint is that minorities are specifically affected. The NAACP is also either a party or helping minority plaintiffs file. Palo Alto is a neighbor of East Palo Alto, which is on the (less desirable) bay shore. There have been racist covenants and exclusionary policies applied towards colored people in the past in Palo Alto, resulting in Palo Alto becoming majority white and East Palo Alto becoming majority colored. All of this is known fact, and lends credence to the complaint. Personally, I think the case has merit even without the race aspect. But the race aspect certainly bolsters plaintiffs' arguments.
- bhupy 6y agoThe race aspect changes which part of the Constitution the ACLU thinks is being violated: namely the Fourteenth Amendment (with the disparate impact philosophy). If that’s what they win on, then it isn’t somehow the end of residency-restricted public parks writ large, it’s probably the end of residency restricted public parks near EPA.