Do you consider local laws establishing "dry" counties to be unconstitutional, or municipal ordinances banning the sale of fireworks? I think the part I'm questioning is the assertion that the right to the "pursuit of happiness" encompasses an unrestricted right to the sale and disposal of personal property.
Those are good questions, tacticalogic. I'm bookmarking this thread for later. I just feel the need to spend some time on the other threads to bash some demodummy heads for a while. Thanks for your remarks and questions. Later. :>
It is reasonable thing that we all have a part to play in creating and maintaining a neutral, safe, free-passage zone in public places in order that we can travel from point A to point B relatively secure in the knowledge that we will not be molested, robbed, detained, or done harm to in any way during the trip.
As the distance between Point A and Point B shortens, say from 20 miles out in the wide open spaces and a couple of blocks in a tightly-populated city, the rules change a little.
In that we have the right to self-determination and freedom of association, we can choose the environment we want to live in. We can contract down some of our rights temporarily in one environment/location and pick them up again in another.
The laws of Commerce are germain to your questions. I have to respect the laws and contracts-in-common that are in force at a time preceeding my arrival. If I don't like the laws, I will set up shop where those laws don't apply and will be sure to be a powerful influence at the city council and county board to insure that the local custom is maintained.
Now, if I were a resident in a community where beer was sold and the city or county wanted to ban the sale of beer, I would have no choice but to sell beer (if I were a beer merchant) and get cited. Then I would have to argue in court that I have been deprived of my rights. Regardless of the outcome, that is the process. Chances are that I would end up owning the city. Heh.
In another instance, let's take the stoopid smoking bans that are sweeping the country. That is an outright violation of private property rights. The state has no compelling interest, as there are no certifiable studies that point to a high probability that second-hand smoke is dangerous to your health. On the contrary, the SCOTUS already trash-canned as fraudulent, the premier statistical study that anti-smokers use to bludgeon city and town councils with to get their bans enacted. Fact is there are other studies that actually show that second-hand smoke does NOT effect your health in any measurable negative way.
I just happen to live in a community where there is no such ban in restaurants, etc., so I have no active interest in pursuing this in court. But I am pretty certain anyone with even a smattering of knowledge would be able to break the ban, and at great expense to the city. But alas, all cowards in the face of fascism. It's common sense that a proprietor should have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking or non-smoking. Let the marketplace decide. There's room for all. (more later.)