What are constitutional "effects?" and does the 4A of the US Constitution protect them?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 18
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I am bothered by the relevant rise is verbal ridicule to physical assault [the legal definition of same] as it regards the wearing of a hat by some citizens that happens to advertise the acronym, MAGA, or the name TRUMP, by supporters of the left who are offended by the wearing of this particular item of clothing, and seek to rid their confrontation with it. There are currently cases before courts of people assaulted for wearing such a hat, and beging removed from airliners for the same "offense." I quote the 4A: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

"Secure in their persons" by at least Roe v. Wade [1973] is defined as "privacy," as well as Katz v. U.S. [1967]. The latter has also defined "effects" as  "personal property," to be distinguished from "real property" [land, and anything constructed on it].  The presumption is that personal property has the right to be considered as protected by right of privacy. A hat is an item of personal property, and the fact that some hats contain discernible messaging such as "MAGA" and "TRUMP" fall under the protected class of both "effects" and "creed" [as in political preference, among other creeds]. 

Any questions?
#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
I certainly don't condone violence against people, but it would depend very much on the circumstances. For example, a business doesn't have to serve you. If they can throw you out for not wearing a shirt, they can throw you out for wearing an objectionable hat. But you seem to be including that as some sort of violation of their rights. which it isn't. And if that guy refused to exit the building as requested, that could lead to violence. And the guy in the hat would be at fault. But i'm sure a right wing news source would spin it as an attack on freedom, or some such nonsense. 
#3
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
How does that logic relate to the "unreasonable searches and seizures" bit?
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,114
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
For example, a business doesn't have to serve you. 
You sure about that?
#5
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Before Lincoln came many businesses refused to serve black Americans. 

Topic's author
#6
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
There three reasons a business serving the public can refuse service to a customer, but clothing that a business may find objectionable is not one of them. A business can refuse employees from wearing whatever, but, contrary to common public opinion, there are no federal or state statutes requiring "no shirts, no shoes, no service"  for customers for health code reasons. They actually can require those restrictions [there is no statutory basis for the claim, but they can try - posting such a notice is not strictly illegal], but they cannot post that it is for health code reasons. Second, a business can turn out non-paying customers. Even in situations where people are browsing, such as excessive time reviewing a magazine rack. The business is in business for sales; it is not a library. Third, they can refuse service on their religious principles, such as refusing a wedding cake for a gay couple if the business owner is opposed to gay marriage. There are other shops not having that restriction, and the customer has the option choosing one of them.
Topic's author
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
The"unreasonable searches and seizures" clause refers to the the listed "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," as being unsearchable and unseizable without a warrant, and no warrant will be issued without probable cause that items in those protected environments have involvement with a crime. 
Topic's author
#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You sure about that?
See my post #6 to buff.
#9
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
For example, a business doesn't have to serve you. 
You sure about that?
if you walk into a business naked, see if they feel they have to serve you. They aren't allowed to refuse service based on protected statuses though, ethnicity for example. 

#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
there are no federal or state statutes requiring "no shirts, no shoes, no service"  for customers for health code reasons. They actually can require those restrictions [there is no statutory basis for the claim, but they can try - posting such a notice is not strictly illegal], but they cannot post that it is for health code reasons.
exactly. They can refuse service based on what you are, or are not, wearing. They are not required to do so, but they can. 

#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
sorry, post 10 was a response to you. 
Topic's author
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Before Lincoln's emancipation [1863] and the 13A, 14A, and 15A [1865, 1868, and 1869, respectively] blacks were not considered whole person citizens. The "three-fifths" declaration thereby passed into history.
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Intelligence_06
Before Lincoln came many businesses refused to serve black Americans. 
the reason you cannot refuse service because of race is the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. It creates protected classes that you are legally not allowed to discriminate because of. So in short, a business can refuse to serve people if they want, unless it is because of one of those protected classes. EX, race, religion, country of origin. 

Some states also have extra laws about this as well, so it isn't entirely consistent across the country. 

Topic's author
#14
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
the reason you cannot refuse service because of race is the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But the reason and basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is due to the second clause of the 13A: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," and section 1 of the 14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Know your history, Buff.
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
But the reason and basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is due to the second clause of the 13A: 
can you clarify why this is relevant? We were discussing private company deciding if they want to serve a prospective customer. We weren't talking about the government creating laws to forbid MAGA hats. So that clause doesn't seem to apply, unless i have missed part of your argument. 

If a business doesn't want to serve someone for wearing a MAGA hat, they don't have to unless there is a specific law in their state that says this is illegal. For example, I believe California has a law that says a business can't discriminate based on unconventional dress.
Topic's author
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
They can refuse service based on what you are, or are not, wearing. 
No, you misinterpret what I said. I said a business can try to refuse service. That's not the same thing as having a carte blanche right to refuse service. That there are no current statutes addressing the issue does not mean that a business may consider they have carte blanche. A customer may file suit, believing their rights have been violated, such as a guy tossed off a commercial airline, for wearing a MAGA hat. The court can either decide against him, or for him. The law does not currently address every single possible situation, but, case by case, the law, either by statute or precedent, is slowing filling the gaps.
Topic's author
#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I believe I have answered your question in your #15 in my #16.
#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you misinterpret what I said. I said a business can try to refuse service. That's not the same thing as having a carte blanche right to refuse service. That there are no current statutes addressing the issue does not mean that a business may consider they have carte blanche. A customer may file suit, believing their rights have been violated, such as a guy tossed off a commercial airline, for wearing a MAGA hat. The court can either decide against him, or for him. The law does not currently address every single possible situation, but, case by case, the law, either by statute or precedent, is slowing filling the gaps.
I disagree. If the law doesn't not say something is illegal, then it is legal. A company has the right to refuse service unless a specific law says they don't, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or some state laws. You can sue and try to have existing law reinterpreted, or you can try to get new laws passed, but until that happens, the company still has the right to do it. 

So a company has the right to refuse service to someone wearing a maga hat if they want, as long as there isn't a law in that state saying this is illegal.