TCash101 v. Southeast

[Emsworth]

The case is accepted for consideration.

I would like to ask the plaintiff whether the federal Bill of Rights applies to the regions in the first place. In the United States, the Bill of Rights was originally binding only upon the federal government. It took the Fourteenth Amendment to make it binding upon the states. Is there any language in the Constitution that parallels the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment? Or, is there some reason for which this analogy between the American and the Atlasian constitutions is invalid?

[Emsworth]

I would like to ask a further question:

What is the plaintiff's view on the distinction between private and governmental actions? For example, it is unconstitutional for the government to prevent someone from bearing arms. But it is also unconstitutional for someone to ban firearms on his private property?

[Emsworth]

But similarly, the property owner can't tell a person he may not have a gun after he leaves his private property, and an employer cannot dictate the speech and assembly of those in his employment when they are not "on the job."

A private property owner can say to someone, "If you have a gun anywhere, then I will not allow you on my property ever again." Why can't the employer, similarly, say, "If you participate in a union, then I will never hire you?" The two situations appear to be analagous. In the one case, someone is being excluded from a piece of property; in the other, he is being excluded from a company.

[Emsworth]

Where is this right given?

As you know, a right need not be explicitly mentioned in order to be protected. The enumeration of certain rights must not be construed as a denial or disparagement of others.

But are you arguing that, if an individual refuses to admit another person onto his property on the grounds that the latter person has previously owned a gun, then the Constitution has been violated?