And corporations and Federal officials who did it should be made to pay for this deprivation of rights under the color of law. It's a disgusting violation of the Constitution they were sworn to uphold
Why hasn't anybody been able to sue these companies for acting as agents of the government and violating our rights, if they've got documents to prove it?
They can't be prosecuted for saying no. Whitehouse is only asking them what I'd ask but I don't have the social dominance the Whitehouse has. Clearly a case of the Whitehouse exercising its own freedom of speech. Much in the same way the recent threat to rail was mediated.
They hold their monopolies at the behest of the government, and wind up becoming agents of that government, and thus state actors.
"Our cases try to plot a line between state action subject to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny and private conduct (however exceptionable) that is not. Tarkanian, supra, at 191; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 349 (1974). The judicial obligation is not only to "'preserv[e] an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law' and avoi[d] the imposition of responsibility on a State for conduct it could not control," Tarkanian, supra, at 191 (quoting Lugar, supra, at 936-937), but also to assure that constitutional standards are invoked "when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains," Blum, supra, at 1004 (emphasis in original). If the Fourteenth Amendment is not to be displaced, therefore, its ambit cannot be a simple line between States and people operating outside formally governmental organizations, and the deed of an ostensibly private organization or individual is to be treated sometimes as if a State had caused it to be performed. Thus, we say that state action may be found if, though only if, there is such a "close nexus between the State and the challenged action" that seemingly private behavior "may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Jackson, supra, at 351. ... Our cases have identified a host of facts that can bear on the fairness of such an attribution. We have, for example, held that a challenged activity may be state action when it results from the State's exercise of "coercive power," Blum, 457 U. S., at 1004, when the State provides "significant encouragement, either overt or covert," ibid., or when a private actor operates as a "willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents," Lugar, supra, at 941 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have treated a nominally private entity as a state actor when it is controlled by an "agency of the State," Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S. 230, 231 (1957) (per curiam), when it has been delegated a public function by the State, cf., e. g., West v. Atkins, supra, at 56; Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614, 627-628 (1991), when it is "entwined with governmental policies," or when government is "entwined in [its] management or control," Evans v. Newton, 382 U. S. 296, 299, 301 (1966)." Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531 U.S. 288 (2001) at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/288/
"At the behest"? The administration has zero power to end their business models at the stroke of a pen. It would require a huge degree of political will for Congress to go after monopolies. A will which is not in evidence.
You forget about that part of the government which exercises real power - the Administrative State (which is at least nominally under the control of the Executive Branch, much more so for Biden than Trump)- and they *can* put people out of business with a simple phone call - see https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/good-points-here-who-is-really-running
Oh yes, the government hires a ton of (unelected) people to carry out legislation. Members of Congress hire (unelected) staffers you will be likely to talk to if you talk to anyone. No one at a regulatory agency can Willie nilly just call up somebody up and tell them they're out of biz. Well they could but likelier the caller would be out of a job. Of course the DOJ could decide it's got the goods and have you indicted. They aren't elected are they? I suppose by your lights only members of Congress should be able to issue arrest warrants and then do it themselves like bounty hunters.
Go to your local law school library and have a look at the US Code - then have a look at the Code of Federal Regulations - which has equall weight as statutory law. Then sit in on a law school course on Administrative Law. That might wake you up as to a few things...
Why hasn't anybody been able to sue these companies for acting as agents of the government and violating our rights, if they've got documents to prove it?
Litigation is in progress...
They can't be prosecuted for saying no. Whitehouse is only asking them what I'd ask but I don't have the social dominance the Whitehouse has. Clearly a case of the Whitehouse exercising its own freedom of speech. Much in the same way the recent threat to rail was mediated.
They hold their monopolies at the behest of the government, and wind up becoming agents of that government, and thus state actors.
"Our cases try to plot a line between state action subject to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny and private conduct (however exceptionable) that is not. Tarkanian, supra, at 191; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 349 (1974). The judicial obligation is not only to "'preserv[e] an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law' and avoi[d] the imposition of responsibility on a State for conduct it could not control," Tarkanian, supra, at 191 (quoting Lugar, supra, at 936-937), but also to assure that constitutional standards are invoked "when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains," Blum, supra, at 1004 (emphasis in original). If the Fourteenth Amendment is not to be displaced, therefore, its ambit cannot be a simple line between States and people operating outside formally governmental organizations, and the deed of an ostensibly private organization or individual is to be treated sometimes as if a State had caused it to be performed. Thus, we say that state action may be found if, though only if, there is such a "close nexus between the State and the challenged action" that seemingly private behavior "may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Jackson, supra, at 351. ... Our cases have identified a host of facts that can bear on the fairness of such an attribution. We have, for example, held that a challenged activity may be state action when it results from the State's exercise of "coercive power," Blum, 457 U. S., at 1004, when the State provides "significant encouragement, either overt or covert," ibid., or when a private actor operates as a "willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents," Lugar, supra, at 941 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have treated a nominally private entity as a state actor when it is controlled by an "agency of the State," Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S. 230, 231 (1957) (per curiam), when it has been delegated a public function by the State, cf., e. g., West v. Atkins, supra, at 56; Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614, 627-628 (1991), when it is "entwined with governmental policies," or when government is "entwined in [its] management or control," Evans v. Newton, 382 U. S. 296, 299, 301 (1966)." Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531 U.S. 288 (2001) at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/288/
"At the behest"? The administration has zero power to end their business models at the stroke of a pen. It would require a huge degree of political will for Congress to go after monopolies. A will which is not in evidence.
You forget about that part of the government which exercises real power - the Administrative State (which is at least nominally under the control of the Executive Branch, much more so for Biden than Trump)- and they *can* put people out of business with a simple phone call - see https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/good-points-here-who-is-really-running
Oh yes, the government hires a ton of (unelected) people to carry out legislation. Members of Congress hire (unelected) staffers you will be likely to talk to if you talk to anyone. No one at a regulatory agency can Willie nilly just call up somebody up and tell them they're out of biz. Well they could but likelier the caller would be out of a job. Of course the DOJ could decide it's got the goods and have you indicted. They aren't elected are they? I suppose by your lights only members of Congress should be able to issue arrest warrants and then do it themselves like bounty hunters.
Go to your local law school library and have a look at the US Code - then have a look at the Code of Federal Regulations - which has equall weight as statutory law. Then sit in on a law school course on Administrative Law. That might wake you up as to a few things...
Laws created by agencies are called “regulations.” Regulations usually must be authorized by a statute, and are subordinate to statutes.Dec 14, 2016
What i amm awake to is that you are losing so wouldn't i please go away for at least six months.