Anti’s don’t understand rights

I know Ryan and I have brought this up numerous times, but it comes up so often that it bears repeating.

Again, FU.
Don’t even remotely connect non-smokers
and those who wish to work in a smoke free environment socialists.
“Private property” when run as a business MUST abide by the laws in that State, as well as Federal laws.
If you don’t like it, DON’T OPEN A BUSINESS.

My Response

Again you are wrong, but then you must be use to that. I am well versed in the constitution and they must have used invisible ink on my copy. Show me where “WORKERS HAVE A RIGHT TO A SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE.” Like I said they must have used invisible ink on my copy. However the constitution does have a clause in the fifth amendment. “without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is from a Supreme court case,

Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner’s privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center’s operations, and petitioner’s property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner’s tenants.


The difficult cases are generally those where government regulations, enacted to secure some sort of public benefit, fall disproportionately on some property owners and cause significant dimunition of property value.

The Court has had a difficult time articulating a test to determine when a regulation becomes a taking. It has said there is “no set formula” and that courts “must look to the particular circumstances of the case.” The Court has identified some relevant factors to consider: the economic impact of the regulation, the degree to which the regulation interferes with investor-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Still, as our cases suggest, there is a lot of room for argument as to how these various factors should be weighed.

The challange is still out there, show me where in the Constitution where the right exists for smoke free anything?


About Marshall Keith

Broadcast Engineer Scuba Diver Photographer Fisherman Hunter Libertarian
This entry was posted in Libertarian, Smoking Ban. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Anti’s don’t understand rights

  1. Jeni says:

    They can’t show you that, can they!? Because it doesn’t exist – and ten to one this challenge is where they bow out and become silent…

    They’re so transparent.

  2. Pingback: Snitch on your neighbor! « People's Republic of Madison

  3. marbee says:

    One of the 5 main things the Constitution guarantees is that this nation protect property rights (from smoking bans) and earnings (taken for tobacco control), yet this uneducated government would take away the rights of tobacco companies and privately owned businesses. The smoking ban is an attack and deprives owners of property, which IS the fruits of labor, especially if they cater to smokers who make up 1/3 of the population! A U.S. Supreme Court judge once said “It’s not the right OF property which is protected, but the right TO property, sacred from arbitrary interference.” Our nation’s founders would be appalled!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: