It does? Or was this sarcasm? Or am I being whooshed, somehow?
But I would assume that if a particular state constitution protected freedom of association in a fashion similar to the federal constitution (e.g. - the Boy Scouts case), then that state may not be able to make an anti-discrimination statute apply to a private home?
In pretty much every jurisdiction in Canada, sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination, so such a practice would be a breach of either provincial or federal human rights laws.
Not to hijack, but in light of the various SCOTUS decisions affirming a right to privacy, I find it hard to believe that a ban on smoking in one’s own home would be enforceable. Also, wouldn’t the banning by a state of tobacco run afoul of the federal government’s regulatory powers?
How is a ban on tobacco different from one on marijuana? The government seems to enforce that ban just fine.
Where exactly are these suburbs? I’ve lived in Orlando for seven years now and never heard such a thing. Now, if you consider Lakeland to be a suburb of Orlando (its a 45-minute drive from the western city limits) then this may be true.
Incidentally, the Adams Mark hotel in Daytona has run afoul of this- they refused to rent rooms to those attening BCR (Black college reunion, or the black equivalent of Spring Break- and no, I don’t know why they do it seperately either) on the grounds that in the past they had been loud, destructive, and bothered other guests. Naturally, the NAACP stepped in and said it was a return to segregation, and the Florida SC agreed to the tune of several million dollars…
marijuana is restricted under federal law as well as state. California decriminalized medical marijuana on the state level but the United States Supreme Court held that the federal prohibition overrode the state exemption (or more exactly held that the state law did not constitute a defense to a federal prosecution for marijuana possession).
really? i don’t smoke 'n stoke, but i know of several people who do. yet they have not got cought.
How does that affect the right to privacy you mentioned in your previous post? Do people have less of a right to privacy against federal law than against state law?
I know of several people who speed on the freeway but have never been caught. I’ll let you know whether that gets me out of my next ticket.
Otto
In regard to the right to privacy that has been developed by the SCOTUS — it is extremely limited. Basically three categories fall under the right to privacy (and get a higher standard of review):
1 - procreation (e.g. contraceptives, abortion)
2 - child-rearing activities
3 - issues involving the right to marry
As of right now, these are the ONLY three things that fall under the fundamental right to privacy.
Other things (like the right to decline medication or consensual sexual activity) do not fall under the right to privacy. It’s a little bit misleading that the Court talked about the right to privacy in the recent Lawrence anti-sodomy case since they did not elevate the standard of review.
But - to actually answer what you were asking — a federal law banning smoking in the home could not be overturned based on the right to privacy.
— Peter Wiggen
I find it odd that you seem to be using the terms “rights” and interests" intechangeably.
minty green
While in practice the states have gotten away with a lot in this area, that doesn’t mean that the rights don’t exist, or that the SCOTUS never recognizes them (if you’re putting marijuana as a property rights issue, then surely sodomy is as well).
The federal government has the power to regulate activities involving channels, instrumentalities, or activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. If the activity in question meets this test (and isn’t otherwise unconstitutional), it’s within the power of the commerce clause and can be regulated; if not, it can’t. If an activity in your home or business is regulated by a valid exercise of the commerce clasue, whatever rights you may or may not have as a property holder will be trumped by federal law. This holds true whether it’s your right to serve who you wish and exclude who you wish on your private property, your right to grow wheat on your private property for your own personal and non-commercial consumption, or your right to manufacture controlled substances on your private property.
Again, you might be able to claim that some of these regulations are unconstitutional in that they violate, for example, your freedom of association, but not all arguments of unconstitutionality are going to fly. Just try arguing that the criminalization of your stash amounts to a taking of private property without just compensation. The same goes for public accomodation laws: the reason that they can regulate how private businesses do business is because they’re valid and constitutional exercises of the commerce clause.