At 12:32 AM 7/25/00 -0400, Kevin Elliott wrote:
>were unconstitutional. Another way of putting this would be for the
>government to outlaw brushing ones teeth.
Simple. Outlaw possession of toothbrushes. Intercept at customs.
Teach children in public schools that clean teeth are bad. Make
the teaching of dental hygene or dentifrice manufacture illegal.
Any questions?
The constitutionality of this framework,
>however, is very questionable. Clearly the right is not enumerated.
>Clearly the sweeping ruling in Roe vs. Wade has caused untold
>problems of constitutionality and legislation. Those sorts of
>problems are generally seen as being caused by overly broad decisions
>that take the power to lead on an issue from the legislature and
>instead force the courts to spend the next several rulings trying to
>make law, a roll they are very poor at.
>
>However that is all besides the point, the crucial point is this-
>like all the "rights" in the constitution this absolutely does not
>apply to any organization other than the government. Their is
>absolutely no constitutional requirement that a business follow any
>of the points layed out in the constitution (at least in regards to
>the first 10 amendments). They simply do not apply. All are
>"rights" in the constitution are not truly rights of the typical sort
>"you can expect to be treated this way, you can demand that others
>not do this to you" but are of the sort "GOVERNMENT is absolutely
>forbidden, under any circumstances, from doing X". If China were to
>invade tomorrow and push the California border back to the
>Mississippi, the government can still not force you to put soldiers
>up in your house. They can buy it for a reasonable, fair market
>value, and they can force you to sell, but as long as that house is
>owned by you, you get to say who if and when government agents live
>there. Substitute employer for government in the previous scenario,
>however, and the situation is quite different. Then can ask, they
>can demand, they can even force you to house marketing droids, and
>still, not a single one of your constitutional rights was ever
>violated. It may be illegal based on the laws this land is run by
>but it is certainly not unconstitutional. And so, in answer to your
>original question, neither, the two rights (right to privacy and
>freedom of the press) are NEVER in opposition because neither of them
>apply to non-governmental agencies.
>--
>
>Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ#23758827
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both
>instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly
>unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware
>of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting
>victims of the darkness."
>-- Justice William O. Douglas
>
>
>
