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.
Dear spunkets,
Ultimately, the argument concerning the part of the US code you cite, I think, fails.
Here's why: First, it's a criminal statute, thus not accessible directly by the employees affected. Only the government may prosecute.
But second, it assumes that rights are being denied without due process. That begs the question of the whole debate.
But if rights were being denied, then the employees would have a cause for civil litigation. Without Title 18 of the US code. Just walk into court, allege a tort based on denial of rights, allege the harm is having been fired, walk out with backpay, reinstatement, legal fees, and maybe even some punitive damages, depending on how egregious the violation.
But no one is suing under that theory, because, frankly, no one is forcing them to do anything. If you don't want to work for the folks, don't work for them.
Companies have been promulgating these rules, quite successfully from what I gathered from my business and employment law class, and the courts are quite pleased with them. Even in this case, the fired employees are claiming only that they did not have sufficient notice of the policy, not that the company had no right to enforce it.
sitetest