• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

did the USSC cause a problem with the bill or rights.

ernst barkmann said:
the constitution speaks to governments only ,limiting them, it does not place limits on people or business.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, I am talking about the 1st now, freedom of speech.
 
ernst barkmann said:
a person or business cannot violate the constitution, its not possible.

a person business can only violate criminal law, or a statue government has created.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can either by "State Action" or if the property is deemed a "Public Forum".

Citing the seminal Alabama v. Marsh;

383 F3d 449 United Church of Christ v. Gateway Economic Development Corporation of Greater Cleveland Inc | OpenJurist

Also see, Brentwood;

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

There are other cases also.
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you break it down for me, what section of the constitution did they violate?
Click to expand...

Brentwood, in part;

When the Association penalized petitioner Brentwood Academy for violating a recruiting rule, Brentwood sued the Association and its executive director under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the rule's enforcement was state action that violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted Brentwood summary judgment, enjoining the rule's enforcement, but the Sixth Circuit found no state action and reversed.

Held: The Association's regulatory activity is state action owing to the pervasive entwinement of state school officials in the Association's structure, there being no offsetting reason to see the Association's acts in any other way. Pp. 5-17.


Gateway was a freedom of speech issue, Ist AM, where people wanted to protest, etc., on private property, of the Indians. The court had to decide whether the sidewalk, although privately owned was a "Public Forum"

I do not know if you are familiar with the Pruneyard/Robbins case, but the issues are "similar". Ohio does not permit what CA did in Pruneyard, however, those are state constitution issues.

Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision - OH Case Law
 
lawboy said:
Brentwood, in part;

When the Association penalized petitioner Brentwood Academy for violating a recruiting rule, Brentwood sued the Association and its executive director under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the rule's enforcement was state action that violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted Brentwood summary judgment, enjoining the rule's enforcement, but the Sixth Circuit found no state action and reversed.

Held: The Association's regulatory activity is state action owing to the pervasive entwinement of state school officials in the Association's structure, there being no offsetting reason to see the Association's acts in any other way. Pp. 5-17.


Gateway was a freedom of speech issue, Ist AM, where people wanted to protest, etc., on private property, of the Indians. The court had to decide whether the sidewalk, although privately owned was a "Public Forum"

I do not know if you are familiar with the Pruneyard/Robbins case, but the issues are "similar". Ohio does not permit what CA did in Pruneyard, however, those are state constitution issues.

Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision - OH Case Law
Click to expand...


Thus, for the purpose of this case, we need not decide whether Gateway is a state actor under the other two theories advanced by UCC: our decision in today's case has no bearing, for instance, on whether, Gateway's employees would receive First Amendment protection for their workplace speech or whether Gateway would have to comply with the Due Process Clause when firing a subcontractor. Rather, our holding today means only that Gateway is a public actor when performing the public function of regulating the public's access to the Gateway Sidewalk.

you as a citizen can sue anyone or any thing for rights violation, it does not mean it is ruled on that way.

this question is very clearly of...... "who's property is it"

which is the question which should be asked by everyone, when a problem occurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom