Posted on 07/24/2006 3:15:54 PM PDT by SmithL
You might want to look up a case in New Jersey where residents had to belong to a club in order to live in a lake community. The club was exclusive, because the goal was to keep certain ethnic groups out. The community lost, because you can't force someone to join a club in order to live in a community. Packanack Lake, NJ---in the sixties, I think.
So you either have newly elected (or reelected) legislators passing this in which case you would undoubtedly whine about how they were just paying back special interest groups or during an election year in which case you whine about pandering for votes.
Not whining, just stating the obvious. You are correct, however, it's all politics as usual.
Amazing it takes an act of Congress to accomplish this.
Oh I will not sleep at all tonight realizing hysteric rabidly ignorant political know nothings on the Freeper Fringes vote count the same mine does! Simply amazing to discover their are people are so rabidly ignorant and partisan bigoted, that they cannot grasp even the simplest BASIC principals of US Civics.
It gets really amazing when they aggressively demonstrate they really are so intellectually crippled they believe the President can only do one thing at a time.
BASIC Civics lesson for the Perpetually Bitching. Tattoo this on the back of your hands so you all remember it next time before you post. Congress passed the Law, he has only a set number of days to sign, veto or pocket it.
But of course the rabid Bush haters don't care about factual reality, all they care about is finding the next reason to throw their daily childish temper tantrum over!
How is it pandering if it passed unanimously in both houses? Nobody gained a political advantage from this. As another poster stated, it merely fixed something that needed fixing.
Your argument is similar to those who say we should not fund (fill in government program here, like space exploration) because there are poor people and schools who could use the money more.
We can't fix all the big problems of the world today, but we can fix some of the small ones, and that's what this law does.
Nope, just the usual whining from the Crying Choir.
Freedom does have it's risks, one is the risk of singing and agreeing to a bad contract.
Homeowner associations are creepy, no doubt about it. I can see the need for condo associations to pay for common property.
I just do not like to see private contracts voided, it is an assault on private property.
Sure flying the flag is a "Feel Good" case, but I just do not like private contracts voided. A signature on a contract means a man has given his word, or it means nothing but which way the wind is blowing.
What I'm trying to find in my copy of the Constitution is where exactly does either the Congress or the President have the legal right or power to enact such legislation.
Don't get me wrong... I proudly have a US Flag flying on my front porch, right next to the sign with the revolver that says "We don't call 911". And any a$$ho!e who tried to burn or desecrate a flag in my presence would either end up in the hospital or I'd end up in jail.
But still, there is a very important principle here- the Congress and the President have only the power that they are allowed by the US Constitution- no more. This is 1.) a state's rights situation and 2.) an abridgement of legal contractual rights.
As to #1, the Fed Gov doesn't have the power to regulate behavior or most anything else within the boundaries of the sovereign states. That is the province of the state itself. The FedGov is usurping state's power by attempting to regulate this type of thing, and it should be struck down by the USSC as being beyond the power of the FedGov.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
--James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45
As to #2, legal contracts are pretty much sacred under the Constitution. The FedGov doesn't have the power or authority to control or regulate consensual parties to a legal contract. A homeowner's association- which is what this is aimed at- has entered into a contract with the homeowners upon purchase of their property, usually by contractual agreement with the bylaws, etc. of the association. If someone doesn't like the bylaws, they either work to change them, or don't buy the property covered under such a contract.
So under both of these precepts, the FedGov doesn't have any right to try to regulate any of this. This is election year grandstanding, just like the flag burning laws, and most other krap™, attempting to sway sub-moron IQ voters during election years.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
--Thomas Jefferson
"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
--Edmund A. Opitz
"There is no distinctly native American criminal class... save Congress."
--Mark Twain
Next up: a bill declaring Terri Schiavo to be an American flag.
I can sleep well tonight knowing you're not the President.
And papers will be filed on Tuesday from some alphabet organization and a Supreme will declare it unconsitutional.
>> legal contracts are pretty much sacred under the Constitution. The FedGov doesn't have the power or authority to control or regulate consensual parties to a legal contract. A homeowner's association- which is what this is aimed at- has entered into a contract with the homeowners upon purchase of their property, usually by contractual agreement with the bylaws, etc. of the association. If someone doesn't like the bylaws, they either work to change them, or don't buy the property covered under such a contract.
>> So under both of these precepts, the FedGov doesn't have any right to try to regulate any of this. <<
Not exactly correct:
For many, many years the courts have refused to enforce provisions of private contracts that are "contrary to public policy."
So it's well-established law that if, for example, a homeowners' association bars blacks, Chinese, Jews or any other ethnic or religious group, then the courts will find these contractual provisions null and void.
In a similar vein, about ten years ago the Congress made it illegal for homeowners' associations and landlords to prohibit external TV antennas, whether for satellite or terrestrial reception.
[This doesn't mean your house or apartment can have ANY type of "monster" antenna. But a condo association or landlord is required to make reasonable accomodations for antennas below a certain size.]
So whether one likes the state of the law or not, I'd say the precedents are crystal clear.
Arkinsaw wrote:
>> My fear with Homeowner's Associations are that they will, over time, expand to cover nearly all the livable space so that you pretty much will get one wherever you go. They then become a non-government government restricting you outside the Bill of Rights.
>> Imagine if all the neighborhoods in the nation were under a Homeowner's Association....and all of them restricted firearms to live there. Yes, the governments would have no ability to make you give up your weapon, but in order to live in a house anywhere you would have to sign that right away.
>> They should be treated as pseudo-governments since they are citizens of an area voting to tell other citizens in the area how to live. They should be bound by the Bill of Rights just like any other. <<
These points are very well taken!
In fact the situation is already worse than you may suspect, because some municipalities are now REQUIRING that all new subdivision developments must be governed by homeowners' associations.
I seem to recall moreover that there have been a few cases where municipalities went into existing neighborhoods and forced the residents to group themselves into owners' associations, where no associations had previously existed.
I'd say that at least in these sorts of cases, there can be absolutely no question that the associations are acting "under the color" of government and should be subject to the Bill of Rights, etc.
NRA take note!
Homeowners associations are composed of the homeowners. Where we live, there are strict rules on what trees can be cut down a certain distance from the lake and the house must be approved by the architeural review committee. No boats, boat trailers, trash cans or anything else is permitted outside. Even mailboxes must be a certain style and conform to a tqo page blueprint design. The list goes on...
Stuffit!
Most good hardware and home improvement stores (maybe even Wal*Mart) carry them. Sure beats forgetting and leaving the light on all day -- or (heaven forbid) flying Old Glory -- unlighted -- all night...
Can't count the folks who have complimented us on how beautiful the flag looks -- especially at night. Also, we are known by people who drive the road in front of our house as "the folks with the U.S. flag".
IMHO, there are lots worse reputations to have... '-)
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.