Posted on 04/07/2016 9:17:39 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is warning landlords they could face discrimination charges for turning down prospective tenants with criminal records — if the decision has an “unjustified discriminatory effect.”
A Republican senator described new HUD guidance issued this week as yet another move by the Obama administration to support convicted criminals.
The 10-page document states that “where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act.”
The Fair Housing Act applies to federally-funded and private sector housing. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Mercy to the guilty becomes cruelty to the innocent, as Adam Smith once warned.
Firends I knew looking for apartments, always asked if the policy of the apartment complex was to give safe havens to convicts, pedaphiles, they were looking for a safe neighborhood. So, now you can´t do that! The POLICE STATE CONDITION is tyranny.
So if any “protected class” commits a disproportionate amount of crime they now get rewarded for it when it comes to special housing rights?
this will go all the way to the supreme court if the president decides to enforce this. official public housing all ready discriminates against felons unless they are involved in a government program that gives an exception.
If you are looking for a "safe" apartment complex, choose one with a high deposit, preferably an entire month's rent.
Before I settled down and bought a house, I rented many apartments. I always found that high deposits = no riffraff. Dirt cheap move-in specials = crime and thugs.
Maybe a rent discount for having a concealed carry license will be how landlords have to go, so they can insure nothing but “good guys” in their building.
when police tenants park their cop cars in front of the building — works miracles to keep the place safe for everyone
Can landlords not accept Section 8?
how about we put up low income housing in the districts and neighborhoods of all these politicians who are forcing these laws on us all? Watch them cry moan and complain when their house values drop through the roof! As they cry about inadequate police protection when the criminals they love to protect turn on them and start affecting THEIR pocketbook!
It’s forbidden because it has a disparate impact on criminals.
Well blow me down.
“I wonder if credit scores are also racist?”
Answer: Yes, they are. That’s probably next.
Prediction - fewer places are available to rent.
And a detailed application form, plus a minimum credit score above 750 or so.
They can not be forced to participate in the program, but in less desirable neighborhoods you are not likely to get good market rate tenants. And physically going to collect the rent can be hazardous to your health or even your life. That check from the state comes regularly, for most of the rental amount, so there's less need to take that risk.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if this unconstitutional federal spending program has won votes for corrupt lawmakers from low-information citizens.
Regarding federal social spending programs, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1) in Helvering v. Davis, please consider this. James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had officially explained that the GWC was not intended to be a delegation of specific powers, but is only an introductory clause for most of the clauses which follow it in Section 8.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, 1817.
In fact, consider that if the feds weren’t state stealing state revenues via unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, then the states would probably be able to finance and manage their own housing projects.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Also, even if the states had amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit the kind of discrimination that the constitutionally undefined HUD is complaining about, the Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that only federal and state governments, not private citizens, are obligated to respect the personal protections that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
Again, for a long time corrupt federal politicians have been establishing unconstitutional federal spending programs for the benefit of low-information citizens in order to win their votes.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach as evidenced by unconstitutional federal spending programs, Obamacare and HUD as examples.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire institutionally indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices who are clueless about the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.