Jim, you'll just have to trust me on this. Or read an 8th grade civics book. The Bill of Rights does not regulate private citizens.

What particular amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits employers from requiring employees submit their personal computers to examination? They can and some do. You don't like it, the remedy is to get a new job. Can you describe a contact that would be unconstitutional?

1) Please, lets try not to be insulting. I've had plenty of 'civics' and I don't do PARF, so...

2) I would never say the Bill of Rights regulated private citizens, the Bill of Rights defines citizen rights that are just that - rights - of which you cannot be deprived. A contract does not have the authority to deprive you of those rights just because it is non-governmental.

3) If an employer wanted to search your personal (i.e., home) computers that would be 4th Amendment - unreasonable search. An employer has complete authority over your computers at work, not your personal computers at home. If they think you are a party to a crime, they would have to either obtain your permission to do the search or obtain compulsion via the legal system.

4) No problem. Company changes ownership; new policy is that to work here you must change your religion to conform with the company approved religion. Or: your employment contract specifies that cannot hire/work/associate with anyone other than of the [pick one] religion/party. Or: you cannot advocate any position on any matter contrary to the position specified by an employer, even when not at work and not identified with the employer.

I'm not referring to a voluntary, informed, waiver of a right. I'm referring to a situation which would deprive you, involuntarily, of a fundamental right. I don't profess to be a lawyer, but I think it reasonable to assume that the reason you don't see such provisions in contracts is because they would be unenforceable.

You say "trust me on this" (I assume that means you're a lawyer) so let's turn this around - can you give me an example of an enforceable contract which compels a citizen, without voluntary, informed consent, to be stripped of a constitutional right?

Jim, you are wrong in every analysis you make above. Yes I am a lawyer. I also have a business degree or two. The Bill of Rights does not just not regulate private citizens, it does not apply to private citizens. The Bill of Rights only controls what the government can and can't do - what kind of laws they have authority to pass. You can’t have a constitutional issue without government action.

The Bill of Rights does not apply to any of the situations you describe above. What was drummed into you in MBA school was that you cannot enter into a contract that is illegal - not unconstitutional. State laws protect you from trespass and privacy violations by your employer. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with it. State theft laws protect your property from being stolen from private people, the 5th Amendment’s takings clause does not apply.

There cannot be a constitutional issue without a government action. It is only government actions that are unconstitutional, not private citizens. The fact that you don't understand this, and are actually arguing to the contrary, is appalling. You should seriously have learned this in freshman civics. It is not an insult to point out that you have the most basic misunderstanding of what the constitution is and what it does that is possible. You should seriously reconsider every political opinion you have ever held because it is based on a faulty premise.

Jim - will you trust me on this?

US Constitutional rights (for either citizens or, more recently for corporations) are protected against federal govt. action. A little later, an amendment extended that to protections against the state govts.

Statutes also confer rights (and so do Administrative Rules) that is what people often think of in these matters, but they are not Constitutional. I do not find it appalling; I find it a common misunderstanding.

BTW - government actions include the courts; and there may be some state constitutions that do what you are thinking of -- dunno.

[Green]Really.[/Green]

We completely agree on that - gov't can't enact laws (contract law, for this discussion) that would violate Constitutional protections. Because gov't cannot enact statutes that would permit such a violation, contract law cannot (ultimately) deprive a citizen of Constitutional rights. Chain of events.

I believe what I said was that contracts cannot deprive you of your Constitutional rights - see above.

I don't believe I made such an assertion. Again, see above.

I will be sure to do that. I have found that condescending remarks made on the basis of limited information are the best motivators of personal introspection.

Randy -

Thanks. I kind of thought it intuitively obvious how the ancestry went, but guess not. You know what 'they' say about 'assume'.

Jim