Study the case of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center in the textbook and answer the following questions:

1. Large shopping centers in a community are an important part of the communitys economic wellbeing. The centers hostcommercial activities. Any interruption of commerce by demonstrators could have a ripple effect that negatively impactthe communitys economy. In this case, the demonstrators entered a large, privately owned shopping center to solicit support from patrons for the demonstrators own cause. What is your opinion on the issue?

2. The judge in this case stated that all private property is held subject to the power of the government to regulate its use for the public welfare. How do you feel about the idea that the government can regulate the use of your property for the public welfare? What constitutes public welfare?

3. The judge stated that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions are held in subordination to the rights of society. What do you think will happen if these rights are not held in subordination to the rights of society?

4. Under the creation of law doctrine (under the section heading Property as a Creation of Law of chapter 1), it seems like the government has a lot of power to do whatever it pleases to itscitizens private properties. The extent of your property rights protected by law is always being challenged or diminished bymore regulation. How do you feel about this power and how does this relate to the electoral system?

5. The court may fear that people might use property rights as a shibboleth to cloak conducts that adversely affect the health, safety, morals, or welfare of others. It stated that the governments power to regulate property is capable of expansion to meet new conditions of modern life. How do you feel about the governments dynamically expanding power to regulate property? Should there be other limitations besides the Fifth Amendment limitation on the taking of private property? (Research eminent domain online if you do not know what it is). Provide an example of new conditions of modern life that justify the governments passage of new regulations.

6. The judge stated that to protect free speech and petitioning is a goal that surely matches the protecting of health and safety, the environment, aesthetics, property value, and other social goals. Do you agree with the judges statement? Is free speech rights the same as the right to health and safety?

7. The judge, in reaching its conclusion, stated that public interest in peaceful speech outweighs the desire of property owners for control over their property and that shopping centers to which the public is invited can provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising the right to free speech as proclaimed by California Constitution. Therefore, we conclude that the California Constitution protects speech reasonably exercised in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned. First, do you agree, and why? Second, even if you agree, play the role of a dissenting justice. How would you make a counter argument?

Minimum of a page, single space. Number each question. Discuss thoroughly.