Corporations upsetting the Constitution

[Smokepole]

Corporations upsetting the Constitution

Big Business's war on gun rights must be opposed by constitutional conservatives


This Sept. 28, 2009, file photo, shows a sign above a Walgreens entrance in Gloucester, Mass.

By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
September 7, 2019

In recent days, in rapid succession, retail giant Walmart, the Kroger grocery chain and Walgreens pharmacy, as well as CVS and Wegman’s Food Markets, all announced curbs on open firearms’ carry on their premises, with exceptions, that is, carved for law-enforcement officers.

What a clash of Constitution and capitalism.

The stage is being set for a showdown between the Second Amendment and the free market. And given the number of shootings in recent times, the frustration and fear of the citizenry and the all-courts-press of the Democrats and left to crack down on gun rights, come heck or high water, the fact is America, on Second Amendment freedoms, is marching toward tough times.

We’ve let business stick its nose where it doesn’t belong.

[Remo]

Corporations upsetting the Constitution

Big Business's war on gun rights must be opposed by constitutional conservatives


This Sept. 28, 2009, file photo, shows a sign above a Walgreens entrance in Gloucester, Mass.

By Cheryl K. Chumley
The Washington Times
September 7, 2019

Meh, private property. They have the RIGHT.

[Roundballer]

Meh, private property. They have the RIGHT.

Do they really?

The constitution gives certain rights to the Federal government. It also does not prohibit certain rights to the States. ALL of the rest of the rights are reserved to the States or the People, respectively. Where in the constitution are corporations (a created entity, not a real person) granted anything? The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed", and that is the only place in the constitution that specifically denies, in totality, to government, yet still names it TO the people.

In the constitution, a right of "free association" is given to the People, and by a circumspect inverse, a right not to. That ends at a point where the "Person" opens somethings to the public. The right to NOT associate gets limited to specific individuals and can not be denied to a class or definable sub portion of the population. That, more or less, is the definition of a discriminatory practice. The States have the "right" to control that, and have for what we call "protected classes".

[eightbit]

Meh, private property. They have the RIGHT.

Then they should be able to refuse service based on skin color, age, gender, sexual preference. Meh, private property

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Remo View Post
Meh, private property. They have the RIGHT.

Then they should be able to refuse service based on skin color, age, gender, sexual preference. Meh, private property

Yes they should since laws controlling who property owners can, and cannot, deny entry to are just as much infringements on private property rights as gun control laws are infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

But then it isn't just anti gunners that are perfectly OK with infringements on rights as long as they agree with them.

[Kitgun]

Corporations are starting to look and act like the government.

[CyborgHunter]

In the 1886 case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), Chief Justice Waite of the Supreme Court orally directed the lawyers that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protections to corporations in addition to natural persons.