How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask TexLaw Your Own Question
TexLaw, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 4430
Experience:  Lead trial/International commercial attorney licensed 11 yrs
Type Your Legal Question Here...
TexLaw is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

what is the US law baring the federal government of intruding

This answer was rated:

what is the US law baring the federal government of intruding on your private property rights

There are several laws which prohibit this. The most important are:

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

This prevents the government from using your property without your consent.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This prevents the government from coming onto your property or seizing your property without probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This means you cannot have your property taken without just compensation and without there being a legal proceeding where you are given your right to protest and have the right to a trial.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means that the state government cannot take your property without proving they are entitled to it in a court of law pursuant to fair law and without giving you compensation.

These are the basic laws which protect your property rights. Please let me know if you have further questions. Please also rate my answer positively as I am not compensated by the website for my work on your question until you do.


TexLaw and 7 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

If I am reading this correctly, would the civil rights law of 1964 stand null and void? After all the federal government in intruding into a private contract of a legal establishment. This in turn causing racial and gender divide even greater, because now it is no longer based off of ability, but rather tax appeasement and bureaucracy.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I can guarantee you that the above-cited law in no way renders the 1964 Civil Rights Act null and void. Rather, that Act is fully supported by the Bill of Rights, including and specifically the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I know the civil rights law is good, but I was reading it and it looked to me the government can punish you for not hiring minorities. I also read Ron Paul's vote agents the Civil Rights Act. here is the link

This made go back and re-read the constitution and look and see if it was legal for the government to enter into a private practice.

I am looking into this because I have to write a paper for school and I want to know the law and how it works.

The Civil Rights Act is based on the Commerce Clause in the constitution and has been held to be constitutional. However, there are some limitations to its extension to private citizens and business.

What you need to read is the Supreme Court's decisions on the CRA: - held the act to be constitutional
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Thank you for all the help! I don't want to be the low information voter, so I am trying to understand these laws to the best of my ability. Thank you again!

Good for you.

Just understand that Ron Paul has a fundamental disagreement with the US Supreme Court's reasoning on the Civil Rights Act. He sees it as an improper extension of federal power that is not supported by the constitution.

However, this does not change the fact that his position is universally rejected by legal scholars and constitutional attorneys. The Supreme Court's job is define what is and what is not Constitutional. They have found that the Civil Rights Act is in fact Constitutional.

Good Luck,
TexLaw and 7 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you