Dear spunkets,
I don't think I've said it is beyond the authority of the legislature to prevent corporations from enforcing a policy like this.
I merely have said that, absent laws preventing them from doing so, that companies are permitted to deny access to their property to folks in vehicles who refuse to submit to a vehicle search. Absent laws preventing them, companies may also make searches of these vehicles on company grounds a condition of employment.
I think the Oklahoma legislature did not think this was a violation of constitutional rights, but rather something that was wrong, period.
Not everything that is wrong is unconstitutional.
If the policy were unconstitutional, folks could have sued over the policy per se, and the Oklahoma legislature could have filed a friend of the court brief in support of their position.
But these folks didn't sue over the policy per se, but rather they sued that they weren't adequately informed of the policy.
If, indeed, the policy were unconstitutional, it wouldn't have required legislation, only judicial action.
sitetest
The employees have a remedy by suing under 18USC241. If I was the US atty, or AG, I'd bring charges. There's also the conspiracy element.
"But these folks didn't sue over the policy per se, but rather they sued that they weren't adequately informed of the policy."
That's what I saw. Either the plaintiff's atty's are incompetent, or they are working for the same end result as the employers. I've seen this before, where the atty's are being paid by their client and working for the opposition.
That's right. The Constitution is a blueprint for govm't and contains the Bill of Rights and amends. which address the matters of which rights are inalienable and may not be infringed, unenumerated rights, limits on infringement, equity, due process ect...
Murder is not unconstituitonal, it's a rights violation and thus their are several fed laws that prohibit and sanction particular murders and 18USC24x? that prohibits and sanctions it as a rights violation. 18USC242 was used to prosecute 2 cops that arrested Rodney King. The courts hold that racial motivation is not necessary and that only the presence of rights violation and lack of due process apply. In the King case the jury found the use of excesive, punishing force was applied w/o due process. Afterwards, they all complained that they were not given the whole truth and were conned by the prosecution and the complicit judge that limited the evidence to what fit the prosecutions arguments.