Can a private individual or group do something unconstitutional but legal?

[DifferentDrummr]

The concept of unconstitutionality is generally applied to what a branch of government does, but what about those outside the government?

 

[Common Sense 1]

Column: Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal)
Column: Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal) | New York Civil Liberties Union

By Christopher Dunn — With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities. Because of this, civil-rights lawsuits seeking to vindicate federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is “state action,” the term used to describe the action of government officials exercising their governmental power. Nonetheless, in many instances people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors. In the 1960s the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action, opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors. Since then, however, the Court has substantially narrowed the situations in which actions by nongovernmental actors can be deemed to be state action. Two recent cases -- one from the Eighth Circuit and one from the Southern District of New York -- involving private actors, police officers, and the First Amendment demonstrate, however, an important approach to extending constitutional obligations to private actors.

 

[Lutherf]

Well, since the Constitution is a restraint on government, not individuals, I don't see how the action of an individual can be unconstitutional.

 

[justabubba]

Well, since the Constitution is a restraint on government, not individuals, I don't see how the action of an individual can be unconstitutional.

how is the act of treason a restraint upon government?

 

[Lutherf]

how is the act of treason a restraint upon government?

You're going to have to expand on that one a bit before I can give you an adequate response. At this point I can only assume your intent and don't want to get into a long winded reply that doesn't address your intent.

 

[Mr Person]

Depends on whether they can be considered a "state actor", and it can get messy fast.

 

[MrWonka]

The concept of unconstitutionality is generally applied to what a branch of government does, but what about those outside the government?

No, but they can still be criminal. I guess I would make a distinction between the parts of the constitution that lay out the powers of the government with some of the laws which exist at the federal level some of which may technically be a part of the constitution.

So for instance during prohibition if someone was caught drinking alcohol I wouldn't say that what they were doing is unconstitutional. I'd say it was illegal or criminal, but to say it's unconstitutional is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Well, since the Constitution is a restraint on government, not individuals, I don't see how the action of an individual can be unconstitutional.

There are portions of the constitution and the amendments that can be interpreted to limit the actions of individuals and other entities subsequent to the establishment of other laws, if not directly.

Per example the amendment to prohibit use of alcohol and other psychotropics effected individuals and entities other than government, as did an amendment to negate part of the prior, 18th and 21st amendments. The constitutional modification of voting rights standards certainly effect individuals, the 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments.

 

[Lutherf]

No, but they can still be criminal. I guess I would make a distinction between the parts of the constitution that lay out the powers of the government with some of the laws which exist at the federal level some of which may technically be a part of the constitution.

So for instance during prohibition if someone was caught drinking alcohol I wouldn't say that what they were doing is unconstitutional. I'd say it was illegal or criminal, but to say it's unconstitutional is a bit of a misnomer.

You won't get this much out of me but I agree.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You won't get this much out of me but I agree.

So how much alcohol can we squeeze out of you? :lol:

 

[Lutherf]

So how much alcohol can we squeeze out of you? :lol:

That depends entirely upon how much alcohol you fill me with!

 

[ataraxia]

The concept of unconstitutionality is generally applied to what a branch of government does, but what about those outside the government?

I can see an individual or a corporate entity interfering with the freedom of speech or the press.

 

[jimbo]

IMO while the Constitution is mostly a restraint on government, there are portions that apply to individuals. The most obvious is voting. And becoming President or congressman.

IMO the second is not restricted only to government infringement but applies to everybody.

Oberlin just found out even bakers have rights.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I can see an individual or a corporate entity interfering with the freedom of speech or the press.

And do you see those as illegal or unconstitutional? I do not see them as unconstitutional.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I can see an individual or a corporate entity interfering with the freedom of speech or the press.

Legally? The 1A has to do with criminality of speech or publication.

OTOH, it's possibly a violation of someone's civil rights for an individual or a corporation to do so.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The concept of unconstitutionality is generally applied to what a branch of government does, but what about those outside the government?

Interesting question.

You may want to check out this thread:

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Interesting question.

You may want to check out this thread:

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

So did Facebook do something unconstitutional here? And if so, what exactly was it?

 

[Masterhawk]

I really don't see how any provision of the constitution would apply to private actors (perhaps aside from the 13th amendment and the 18th amendment which was revoked). The first amendment only bars congress from infringing on freedom of expression (the 14th amendment applies this to the states).

 

[Rickeroo]

The concept of unconstitutionality is generally applied to what a branch of government does, but what about those outside the government?[/QUOTE

It applies to all. All laws flow from the Constitution, down to the local level - or even the concept of the Constitution, which is what Roe V Wade demonstrates: Private, non-governmental citizens performing an action that had to go to the SC.

This would be a Constitutional issue: It may be determined at a later date that my option as a white person to choose not to live in a black neighborhood would violate the civil rights of blacks, therefore I would have to justify my move in non-racial terms. "Better schools" or other excuses may be looked at as a micro-aggression. Then again, I have a 'right to privacy' that may outweigh the rights of blacks to not be insulted when I don't live with them. Very personal choices here, but they are Constitutional questions.

 

[ChezC3]

how is the act of treason a restraint upon government?

Treason is Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 115 Section 2381 of the U.S. Code not the Constitution.