What About the No Test Oath Clause

[Bob Sheridan]

Right.  We seem to have been talking past each other.

What you wrote:  "Fourth, to the private workplace the US Constitution 
does not reach."

What I reasoned:   "But, the Constitution restrains government entry 
into the workplace, say w/o a warrant, and supports statutory 
restrictions such as civil rights laws which do enter the private 
workplace."

If I'm reading you right, now, you seem to be saying that the 
Constitution, text and interpretations such as the public/private 
distinction originating in the 19th c. "Civil Rights Cases," doesn't 
restrain private employers in the private workplace, nor protect the 
employees there (except 13th Amend.) and you don't count statute law as 
being the equivalent of constitutional law in this regard, despite 
whatever constitutional support it may enjoy.

Goddit.

Bob S.
sfls

Steven Jamar wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Bob Sheridan wrote:
>
>> I don't know, perhaps the right against unreasonable search and 
>> seizure.  Public accommodation in allegedly private workplaces?  
>> Lunch counters during the 'Sixties?  Ollie's BBQ and Heart of Atlanta 
>> on civil rights and the Commerce Clause on which they rely....
>
> Sorry, but I think it is the government which is prohibited from 
> unreasonable searches and seizures, not private employers (subject to 
> statutory limits or maybe some common law of privacy).    And all the 
> others are clearly statutory.
>
>>
>> I just hadn't thought the private workplace was a Constitution-free 
>> zone before, that's all, and hesitated to let pass uncritically such 
>> a broad sounding proposition.  Some folks apparently thought 
>> Guantanamo was a Constitution-free zone, to their possible surprise.
>
> Clearly government action at Guantanamo.
>>
>> Perhaps you're making a distinction between statutory doctrine under 
>> the Constitution, or supported by the Constitution, and a narrower 
>> view of Constitutional Law than I was thinking.
>
> Clearly we are using the term differently.
>
>>
>> Bob S.
>>
>> Steven Jamar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
>
> Prof. Steven D. Jamar                     vox:  202-806-8017
> Howard University School of Law           fax:  202-806-8567
> 2900 Van Ness Street NW         mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
> Washington, DC  20008                 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>
> "God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be 
> changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the 
> wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
>
>
> Reinhold Neibuhr 1943
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20061125/ecf588b1/bobsheridan.vcf