Let’s consider the US Constitution in and of itself. It defines the basic structure of the US Government, defines some rules about the States that make up the Union, and define certain inalienable rights that the Government may not take away from the People. For example, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress may not establish a national religion. If Congress violates this provision by “passing” a law defining an official Government religion, then that law is likely void. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the people’s right to be free from arbitrary inflictions of justice and requires that “due process” be followed. If police arbitrarily imprison someone without properly prosecuting them in a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise proceeding according to defined procedure, then that person has the right to request to be set free. These are two instances where the Government (or a officer of the government) is capable in a logical sense of “violating” the Constitution. Also, the States may be capable in a logical sense of violating the Constitution. For example, Article 1 Section 10 states that no State shall coin money or grant any title of nobility. If a state were to grant a title of nobility in violation of this provision, that could be claimed to be “Unconstitutional”.
Can a private citizen (acting solely for themself or on behalf of a private company/corporation/partnership/nonprofit/church/etc., and not as an agent/officer/whatnot of the Federal Government or the government of any state, territory, or subdivision or agency thereof) “violate” the Constitution? We aren’t talking about violating Federal or State law in general - we are talking solely about Constitutional violations. For example, is there anything that I can do that could lead a court of law to stare down at me and say, “robert_columbia, what you did was not only a violation of US Code Section 443.22.a and New York Code 155.a.5654, but was also Unconstitutional!”?
There is nothing about kidnapping in the Constitution. The definition of what constitutes treason is there, but the actual crime is codified in federal statute. A person found guilty of treason is not said to have violated the constitution. Same with selling alcohol during prohibition.
I seem to recall a story from 2004 in which an employer in one of the really red states (Alabama, I think) was allegedly fired for displaying a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. Let’s check… well, a Google search finds several references to the story, but the first page of hits are from partisan websites, so take it as you will.
I’ve wondered about Homeowners Associations, and may yet search for or start a thread asking about court rulings on this question. At present they seem to be able to limit a fair bit of what would seem to be protected free expression (yard signs, color of your house, etc.) with impunity.
Well no, that’s not right. Public actors can violate the Constitution, because they are the arms through which the state acts, and the Constitution prohibits states from acting in certain ways. But private citizens who aren’t acting on behalf of the government can’t.
Doesn’t have anything to do with the question – there’s no constitutional violation there, just a statutory one.
It still is. The Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, says:
Therefore, if you perform such a transportation or importation, your violation of state law by definition also violates the United States Constitution.
Of course, no penalty is provided, and you certainly won’t (and can’t) be prosecuted for the generic crime of “violating the Constitution”. But still, you have performed an act it prohibits.
This is what I’m suspecting. A cop can perform a Constitutionally-impermissible search of my home (no probable cause, no warrant, etc.), and this is a “violation” that I can raise at trial and get any evidence (if there is any…) that the cop found excluded. If my little sister raids my home, that could possibly be construed as Burglary or grounds to exclude her from my next family reunion and refuse to attend her wedding, but if she found evidence of a crime it wouldn’t necessarily be Constitutionally excludeable and any grounds I might have to go after her in court would be pursued under common law or statutory causes of action, not as a Constitutional matter.
HOAs get away with it because you sign up for it when you buy the house, homes in a HOA managed subdivision come with restrictive covenants you must agree to when you purchase the home. You’re basically saying you prefer some of the advantages of a HOA (enforcement of yard standards, decorations, etc) because you like those sort of communities or because you believe it preserves property values, but you’re ceding some of your normal legal rights as a homeowner.
People sue their HOAs pretty often, I think if there was any deeply unconstitutional stuff going on it would have made it to the high courts by now.
If I am the CEO of company A and we agree to collaborate with company B on development of a product, and as part of the collaboration we sign a non-disclosure agreement about certain trade secrets of company B we will be exposed to incidental to the collaboration, and then I take out an ad in the New York Times exposing those trade secrets you better believe I’ll get my ass sued big time and the first amendment will not protect me. It’s not that I didn’t have a right to free speech, but that doesn’t override me willingly entering into a contract where I say I won’t do a thing and then I do it.
What about those times when the Federal government charges someone with violating another person’s “civil rights”? Or do they actually mean they violated an enacted statute, and the phrase is just short-hand?
The Constitution prescribes qualifications for Senators, members of the House of Representatives, President and Vice-President. My guess is that a private citizen who tried to be elected to one of those positions without being qualified might be said to be violating the Constitution. (There is, however, as far as I know no penalty for so doing.)
The restrictions are on holding the office, not on running. You can’t violate the provision(s) unless and until you are sworn in, at which point you are no longer a private citizen.
I think it typically means violation of the statute that criminalizes violation of civil rights, and I think it may only apply to people who are public officers in some way, though I could be wrong on that (it’s really easy to look up in the U.S. Code, though.)
I think mlees is speaking of things like being refused a motel room or a meal at a restaurant owing to race or national origin, and similar stories based on other ‘suspect classifications’.
These offenses are not a violation of one’s consitutional rights but of one’s statutory rights under one or another of the Civil Rights Acts, which were passed to implement Amendment XIV.
Such portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and other civil rights laws) which apply to private actors–for example, the stipulation that hotels may not refuse service on grounds of race–were passed as regulation of interstate commerce. Only the portions which apply to state actors–for example, the sections concerning voting, and public school desegregation, and government employment–were passed in furtherance of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.
Which illustrates the point that what we call “civil rights” are sometimes constitutional rights, and sometimes not. To the point of this thread, however, to violate a “civil right” which is also a constitutional right requires that one be a state actor, and not a private citizen.
Yes, there are instances when a private person/enity can violate the Constitution.
The SC in Marsh v. Alabama, the 1st AM can bind a private entity. The later Skinner case concerns drug testing for private Railroad employees, upheld.
Seperate cases also from my head, when the Gateway Complex, Cleveland Indians, denied protesting to some church members on the sidewalk, even though it was thiers, the court ruled it to be a “public fora”.
I live in Ohio, so am familiar with this case also. Starting at page 14, the OSC outlines, per the SC, when state action is found by a private entity, citing Brentwood Academy for one. The Petition for Mandamus was granted.
If a private persons/entities conduct is so intertwined with the action of the state, they become the state.