Seattle compost rule thrown out by judge as unconstitutional

[happyslug]

30. You are citing NEGATIVE acts by Government, not POSITIVE acts of Government

The Courts have LONG made a distinction between the two. The Government can NOT ban or licenses a constitutional protected activity, but the Courts will NOT require the same government to provide a service that PERMITS such activity. i.e. the Government can NOT prevent you from protesting, but the Government does NOT have to provide a place to protest. i.e. if you want to protest outside the Government Office, you can do so, but if the office faces an interstate highway, the Government has no duty to close that highway so you could protest.

As to Trash pickup, that is NOT a constitutionally protected right. The government can say it will NOT pick up trash and demand that residents take the trash to the dump themselves. The Government can say it will provide the service, but only to those residence who agree that the Trash can be searched. You continue to have the right NOT to have your Trash searched, but that trash does NOT have to be collected and hauled away by the Government.

The issue is what is the right being protected? Is it the right to have trashed picked up, or the right NOT to have that trashed searched? If the Government provides pickup service to everyone, then the Government can NOT stop some people from using that service if they object to their trash being searched. On the other hand, if the Government is ONLY providing service at is own discretion, termination of that service is perfectly legal. Imposition of a similar but new service but only citizens who agree to their trash being searched would NOT violate any right to trash pickup for the new right is conditioned on the right to searched and if you object, you can do so, but the Government will also NOT pick up your trash.

The Bill of Rights cover NEGATIVE acts only, it does NOT provide any POSITIVE ACTS, i.e. the government can NOT impose restrictions on speech, but does NOT have to provide a forum for such speech. The Government can NOT hold you in jail without a trial, but the Government does NOT have to put you are trial to clear your name. The Government can NOT prevent you from owning a Firearm, but the Government does NOT have to provide a firearm either. The Government can NOT take your property without compensation, but the Government does NOT have to provide you property even if you need a place to live.

Now, under the 14th amendment people have to be treated similarly, The government can not say X can do Y, but Z can not do Y, on the other hand if X can do Y, Z can NOT demand that the Government help Z to do Y (For example, I can print a paper and distribute that paper at my own expense to people in my area, my neighbor has the same right to do so, but can NOT ask the Government to provide them a printing press and access to name to receive that paper, unless the Government had provided such aid to me).

There is not to many Positive Rights in the US Constitution and the Courts have been reluctant to find any. For example, if you apply for public housing, your local public housing authority does NOT have to provide you housing. The Housing Authority has a duty to treat all applicates equally, but if someone gets in and the next person is told no, that is it, unless you can show some illegal reason for the Denial (And the burden of proof is only the applicate NOT the housing authority).