Rate Your State's Bill of Rights

[Emsworth]

So, better start working to repeal that clause of our bill of rights.

There's no grounds for that other than personal opinions

Well, the clause can still be interpreted as meaning that the government cannot prohibit unions, but that private employers may or may not refuse to hire union members, if they so desire. (This seems to be the most legitimate interpretation, because a Constitution is meant to restrain governments, not restrain private individuals.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, the clause can still be interpreted as meaning that the government cannot prohibit unions, but that private employers may or may not refuse to hire them, if they so desire. (This seems to be the most legitimate interpretation, because a Constitution is meant to restrain governments, not restrain private individuals.)

No, that would be judical activism. The clause is very clear.

[Emsworth]

No, that would be judical activism. The clause is very clear.

On the contrary, I would beg to disagree. The clause in question is "Persons in employment shall have the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining" (or whatever equivalent in any particular state). Rights have always been understood as exceptions to the power of government. They have never been understood to apply against private persons, unless expressly so stated in the Constitution.

For example, there is a right to bear firearms. This means that the government may not prohibit firearm ownwership. Does it mean that I must allow anyone who comes into my house to carry guns? No, of course not: this right, like the right to collectively bargain, is nothing more than a restriction against governmental intervention, not a right against private persons.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the contrary, I would beg to disagree.

Ah, so what is basically one line isn't clear enough for you? Obviously for it to be clear it should at least 6 paragraphs long and understandable only to lawyers.
Maybe if you had tried to read the text rather than read around it, it would be clearer to you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is your personal opinion. Other opinions do exist and just because you happen to disagree doesn't make them invalid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Using that logic... I see the Atlas constitution also has a little bit saying that cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. So if this only applies to government unless otherwise stated (and it does not) I can go around torturing people? I also see that "No person shall be denied their right to vote or candidacy on basis of nationality, race, religion, sex, sexuality, age or political affiliation"... but does it say that this applies to private individuals? No it doesn't... does this mean I'm allowed to prevent people from voting if I know they'll vote for a party I dislike? If it only applies to government I don't see why I can't... and how about the thing on unreasonable searches?

[© tweed]

From what KEmperor posted, I'll say four, although I'd like to have a link to it.  It contains generic things such as freedom of speech, religion, and etc., and I like the motive of the labor rights, but don't agree with what it states.

[A18]

It is not 'unconstitutional' for a person to go around torturing people. However, it can be outlawed by statute.

[Emsworth]

Ah, so what is basically one line isn't clear enough for you?

No, I just happen to disagree with your interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is not only my view, but also the view that the judiciary has taken. Never has any part of the U.S. Constitution, with the exception of the Thirteenth Amendment, been applied to restrict the activities of private individuals. As Patrick Henry declared, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I don't agree at all with that line of reasoning. Just because the Constitution does not forbid something, it does not become permissible. The United States Constitution does not forbid fraud, or rape, or manslaughter, or speeding on a road. That does not equate to these activities being legal.

The Constitution does not forbid torture by private individuals. The law does.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, I just happen to disagree with your interpretation.

Ah... but I was one of the people responsible for putting it in the Atlas constitution so...  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well this isn't the U.S constitution is it?
I happen to think that if something is a right it shouldn't be infringed by anyone; if it can be legally infringed then it isn't really a right.

And a constitution is clearly not an instrument for people to restrain government; it's basically the framework of government. Mind you I seem to recall that Henry was opposed to the U.S Constitution anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that was an unfair line of arguement. Tempting but I probably shouldn't have said it.

[Emsworth]

Ah... but I was one of the people responsible for putting it in the Atlas constitution so...  

Ah, I see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, a Bill of Rights, a listing of enumerated powers, and so forth, all restrain the government.

As to rights applying to private people: the United States Supreme Court, for a long time, held that the Bill of Rights did not bind the activities of state governments, let alone private individuals. The Constitution is supposed to be a compact between the federal government and the people, not the states and the people, or among the people themselves. States have only been restricted by the Bill of Rights since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifically extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to state governments. I am applying the same line of reasoning in this case.

Anyway, it seems like a very obtuse legal point that will never have much importance.

[KEmperor]

From what KEmperor posted, I'll say four, although I'd like to have a link to it.  It contains generic things such as freedom of speech, religion, and etc., and I like the motive of the labor rights, but don't agree with what it states.

Here's a link to our Constitution's Bill of Rights.  There are several very long sections that I didn't post that also caused me to knock it down simply because of their length.  For example, I wouldn't consider the second half of the first section as much a right as an election rule:

Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived
of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof,
unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers,
except that the legislature may provide that there shall be no primary
election held to nominate candidates for public office or to elect
persons to party positions for any political party or parties in any
unit of representation of the state from which such candidates or
persons are nominated or elected whenever there is no contest or
contests for such nominations or election as may be prescribed by
general law.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?co=3