🚀 go-pugleaf

Joshua Turner <shua@umich.edu> wrote in article
<355B38C5.3AD1@umich.edu>...

<much inane chest-beating deleted>

> > > > It's Not What We THINK!!
> > > > It's WHAT WE KNOW!!
> > >
> > > Perhaps you would take the trouble to cite the section of the
> > > Constitution that guarantees the rights you have in mind...
> > 
> > What car you drive off-company/private property would possibly be
> > protected by the 1st ammendment ( provided of course, your particular
pool
> > of choices all conform to the relevent laws/regulations. ).
> 
> It would only be protected if the government were the one telling you
> you couldn't drive it. The Constitution doesn't apply to private
> relationships/contracts. It only limits the power of the government. If
> I wanted to pay Davis 100 bucks to shut the hell up, that would clearly
> be constitutional; so is an employer agreeing to employ a person so long
> as that person only buys Morgan Plus 8s. 
> 
> Even if it were the government, the chances of you successfully arguing
> that the type of car you drove was in some way protected speech under
> the 1st Amendment would be nil. A better argument would be a 5th
> Amendment "takings" contention, but that would only get you compensation
> for the loss of your property, not the property itself.

Right on the first point, wrong on the second -- but for the same reason
you
are right on the first point.  You are entitled to protection under the
constitution
from 'takings" by the government.  The constitution does not generally
address,
as you state in your previous paragraph, contracts.