Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
Property ownership does not suspend the laws of the land. If the constitution guarantees me free speech, the right to practice my religion, and the right to bear arms for personal protection then I have that right.
|
Nor does your right to keep and bear arms suspend a property owner's right to determine what happens on his or her property. The Constitution enumerates rights and defined the relationship between The People and The Government. It does not define the relationship that private parties may have between themselves.
As another example, let's say that I, a private actor, own a piece of property and want to allow my church to hold a political rally there. This type of activity (church gathering for political purposes) is clearly protected by the First Amendment (speech, assembly, politics and religion, all rolled into one). Does that mean that I am required to also allow a different church that holds very different views to hold
their political rally on my land? No. The First Amendment does not apply, as I am a private actor. I can freely allow the First Church of the RKBA to meet on my land, and freely deny that same privilege to the Third Church of the Antigunner. (Both fictitious, mind you.) If I were a governmental entity, we would have a different situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
I can write whatever I want in any contract I want that does not mean anything if its illegal or unconstitutional. If a landlord can deny you the right to bear arms then they can deny you the right to practice your religion and free speech right? No they can't. Have they been? Probably but that's only because someone did not fight for their rights. Governments can write unconstitutional laws and landlords can write unconstitutional leases and both have been and will continue too but they are not valid.
|
Sorry, no. You're mixing apples and oranges, and in more ways than one. First, private actors are not affected by the Constitution in the same way that governmental actors are. Second, laws and contractual provisions are analyzed under different frameworks. Laws may be unconstitutional and also illegal. Improper contracts between purely private parties can only be illegal, not unconstitutional.
Perhaps a few more examples will help: If a city (government entity) passes a statute that says "Possession of firearms within city limits is illegal," that statute might be unconstitutional, and hence illegal. OTOH, let's say that XYZ Corp (a private property owner) posts a sign saying "Firearms possession is prohibited on XYZ Corp's property." If there is no state law on the issue, then firearms possession on their property is prohibited, and their prohibition is perfectly legal. If there is a state law that says "firearms possession may not be prohibited by private property owners," their prohibitiion is illegal, but it's not unconstitutional.
When it comes to leasing real property and discrimination, a real property owner would be prohibited from refusing to lease to a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group. That's a federal statutory issue, and such discrimination is illegal, but it's not unconstitutional. Now, if we get off into public housing issues, then you have a governmental actor at work, and constitutional issues may arise. That, however, is the subject of a whole different debate.
Just to be clear, two separate issues here:
1) Private parties vs. Governmental actors; and
2) Laws vs. contract issues.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jason_iowa
No I'm not a constitutional lawyer or scholar. Other then spending 8 years in the navy defending it I don't know anymore then anyone else that can read the constitution and SCOTUS decisions. This one was pretty clear in a recent decision.
|
I'm not asking you to be a constitutional scholar, and I appreciate your service. That said, all of the recent decisions to which I think you're referring were against governmental actors, either a city, a state, or some governmental official, acting (at least in part) in their official capacity as a government official. Notice that none of them were against a private party, acting in a private capacity.
ETA: Sorry to be so long-winded, but I am apparently incapable of briefly explaining constitutional issues.