New Const. Amendment: The Right of Freedom of Association

[Don]

A proposal for a new amendment to the United States Constitution:

"The right of freedom of association shall not be infringed."

[Twoller]

We have something like that already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...s_Constitution

United States Constitution

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Intimate Association

A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family.

Expressive Association

Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.

Limitation

However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.[3]

The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So, if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. This doctrine rests on the interpretation of a private contract as a "badge" of slavery when either party considers race in choosing the other.

Governments often require contracts of adhesion with private entities for licensing purposes, such as with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for stock market trading in the 1938 Maloney Act amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These contracts often bar association with banned members, as can be seen in United States v. Merriam, 108 F.3d 1162.

[Don]

My proposed amendment (the right of freedom of association shall not be infringed) goes beyond 1st amendment issues.

Freedom of association means the right to exercise absolute freedom in the issue of whether or not to form, establish, maintain, or terminate and dissolve all forms of associations including personal, individual, business, commercial, religious, educational, etc.

Obviously the dissolution of certain types of legally recognized relationships such as marriages, partnerships, corporate dissolutions, mergers, and other contracts, etc., would be subject to substantive law regarding those areas including family law, contract law, and so forth. You would have absolute right to form or not to form a contract with any other person or entity for absolutely any reason. Once the contract or other kind of relationship is established, however, the right of freedom of association would not be intended to operate as a defense to breach of contract, dissolution of marriage or whatever.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Don

My proposed amendment (the right of freedom of association shall not be infringed) goes beyond 1st amendment issues.

Freedom of association means the right to exercise absolute freedom in the issue of whether or not to form, establish, maintain, or terminate and dissolve all forms of associations including personal, individual, business, commercial, religious, educational, etc.

Obviously the dissolution of certain types of legally recognized relationships such as marriages, partnerships, corporate dissolutions, mergers, and other contracts, etc., would be subject to substantive law regarding those areas including family law, contract law, and so forth. You would have absolute right to form or not to form a contract with any other person or entity for absolutely any reason. Once the contract or other kind of relationship is established, however, the right of freedom of association would not be intended to operate as a defense to breach of contract, dissolution of marriage or whatever.

How about all those gang bangers who have legal injunctions against hanging out with other gang bangers? Is that a denial of free association?