The Amendment you cite is part of the Constitution, which is only, solely, and rigorously restricted to discussing what the government may or may not do. It has no bearing whatsoever on controlling, limiting, or otherwise restricting, directing or ordering the behavior of individuals who are not acting as agents of that government and under color of the law(s) of that government.
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...." No person shall be deprived by whom? BY THE GOVERNMENT! Why? Because only the government can provide due process of law.
At this point I am this >< close to hoping that you actually try to present your theory in a court of law, just so that the pain you would suffer might finally drive home the lessons on understanding law and statutes that you seem so desparately to need.
One does not need to have attended law school to understand these things. There are even places on the internet where one can receive basic instruction on how the law works, how the law is generally interpreted, and how to apply those to any specific situation. However, I truely fear this will never progress to education; it has deteriorated to arguing on the internet and I refuse to do that with an unarmed individual.
stay safe.
You are missing the key point of my argument.
You basically said that only the government can violate someone's rights.
Unless the hospital is a government one, they are not violating any of your rights by confiscating and disposing of your personal peropertry without due process and fair compensation. They would merely be stealing from you.
It is important to remember that the Constitution does not grant rights. Instead, it defines the authority granted to government and the limits placed upon that authority. As part of those limits, certain rights are specified as protected from that authority. That does not mean that only that authority can violate those rights.
As the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Government exists to secure rights. Logically speaking we must then ask, "secure them from what?" If we were to take your position, that only the government can violate someone's rights, then there is no logical reason to create a government to secure rights. The absence of government would be able to prevent any violation of rights.
The only logical understanding of that statement about the purpose of government is to understand that governments exist to secure rights against violation
by other people (including, but not limited to, governments).
Someone stealing from you is violating your right to property. They may not be violating your rights "under color of law", but they are still violating them. In order for them to do so legally, they would have to follow due process of law, through such means as a civil suit, forfeiture proceedings, eviction proceedings, etc. Any other method of a private individual taking your property from you without your consent is unconstitutional (i.e. not permitted by the Constitution).
The means by which we (as a society) have chosen to secure our rights from other individuals is by granting to the government the authority to pass laws prohibiting such activities, with corresponding penalties for the violation of those laws. It's not an either/or situation, where either someone is stealing from you or they are violating your rights. Theft is a violation of another person's right to property.
As such, a hospital that confiscates and disposes of your property, be it a handgun, pocketknife, book, etc, is violating your right to property. They are not violating that right under color of law, but they are still violating it.
