Posted on 08/09/2005 9:27:36 PM PDT by pickrell
PLESSY et al. v. City of Ferguson
certiorari to the supreme court of massachusetts
No. 09-732.Argued February 29, 2013--Decided April 19, 2013
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its bureau of labor expropriation, issued a perfected writ of labor expropriation to citizen Plessy et al, whereby Plessy was conscripted, in similar manner approved for military conscription, see 45ACP, U.S. 1040, Beetle Bailey vs. US Army.
Petitioners refused to have his/their labor taken for public use, arguing that "forcing me to work for Master Jim's Ditch Digging Service digging sewage ditches at sub-minimum wage, is overt slavery." The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking, by sheriff's deputies, of Plessy et al to worksite, granting relief. On appeal, relying on cases such as Ginsburg vs Constitution, the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, granting habeus corpus(es) to Master Jim, and denying relief to Petitioners, holding that the old men currently being compelled in digging of new sewage ditches for proposed development project are dying in a willful and flagrant manner, thus delaying new casino construction, and subsequent property taxes.
Held: The city's proposed use of the labor of secured labor force and their permanent restriction to worksite, for duration of city's redevelopement project qualifies as "public use" within the meaning of the Work Their Lazy Asses Clause, Pp. 1-493, Volumn 9.
(a) The city's promotion of economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function. Since "public use" has been held by previous edict, to be indistinguishable from "public purpose", given that the word "public" can, after careful research, be found in common, and so divined within the emanations of the original framers, the first plumbers, and the occasional beginner electrician; so too, the use of forced labor outdoors can be held to take place in "public".
A purely private taking of the labors of the petitioners could not withstand the scrutiny of the "public" requirement, and would serve no legitimate gain to incumbent officeholders, and thus be void. Since the voids needing to be excavated, enabling the "public use" of waste disposal, are being presumed, see e.g. brief for ACLU as amicus curiae, "The impossibility of indefinitely 'holding it', when the dice are hot.", and thus enabling the public relief without embarrassing backups and cloggings, no discernable merit can be found to argument of private use, as distinguished from use of privates.
Treating the workers on the other side of the tracks as a whole, rather than as a lot, further excludes defense of unjust selection, and demonstrates that it is the takings purpose, rather than it's mechanics, that must pass scrutiny. The court therefore excludes all mechanics, and does so on purpose, due to union considerations, in keeping with the fact that these laborers will require vehicles to be driven to site, and somebody's gotta fix 'em. Petitioners attempts to quash Master Jim's motion, inter alia, was vacated when deputies discovered in time which alley Jim was to be "quashed" in.
(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed, see amicus cited above, to justify a program of forced human conscription, as obviously distinguished from slavery, has necessitated a carefully formulated plan it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, someone else having to do it. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a tax base greater than the sum of its freeholdings. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of the labor of "shiftless and vagrant looking individuals" to promote economic development.
Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Fifth Amendment vs Expeditious, to toss out the tattered remnants of the original constitution, in favor of the new apportionment.
(c)Expropriated laborers are granted relief in compensation at the fair market value for their freedoms, and fixed as three-fifths of a man would be paid under minimum wage, in compliance with previous precedence of the court, and shall not cross state lines until manumission by bureau of labor expropriation.
On a playful note, considering the past final expiration of those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government being thereby reserved to the States and to the People, the Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Without exception, the Court defers to local jurisdiction in matters of sanitation and immediacy.
4U2 Mass. 24/7, 365 year, AM/PM, affirmed.
Justice Clinton, Chelsea, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Schumer, Marx, Trotsky, Tse Tung, and Moore joined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.