Posted on 05/23/2016 5:03:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
We're nearly there and I'm confident the ghetto will NOT follow us that far.
It's too much work.
Of course we'll have to go "into town" on occasion - but that's what 2A is for.
Only if we let it. As Ben Franklin said upon the passing of the Dec of Independence, "You have your republic...if you can keep it".
The trick is to effectively oppose it while avoiding the charge of RACISM.
I see all the usual suspects.
All of them need to be voted out of office.
Well if that’s the argument, the author is wrong about which Constitutional argument covers this. That’s a 5th Amendment Takings Clause argument, not a 4th Amendment search and seizure argument. That doesn’t mean I disagree with the substantive concern about the Federal Government rationing land use in a Soviet-style state controlled system. But the actual argument made is not Constitutionally correct.
bfl
Don’t forget Chappaqua, NY.
That was after WW2. Housing of ANY kind was in high demand then...virtually none had been built since 1931. Plus there was an entire generation of GIs that had left their parents’ already-crowded homes as boys and were now coming home as men seeking their own families.
MARK
**AFFH creates a new definition called “fair housing choice,” which states that the federal government must micromanage local zoning so “individuals and families… [are] able to achieve fair housing choice given the legacy of segregation, ongoing discrimination, and residential patterns that offer different levels of access to community assets.”**
Doesn’t sound too friendly.
So what?
I would resist this as a violation of the 10th Amendment, the 5th, and the 4th. There is also an issue of involuntary servitude if a homeowner is forced to sell to a party against his own wishes.
The bottom line is that in the liberal (socialist) world, private property really doesn't exist. Any property can be controlled by the State for the betterment of the Collective. That is exactly the reasoning behind this draconian program, and one reason it must be resisted, defied, and overturned.
Congress should act to un-fund HUD if this is allowed to continue. Using taxpayer money to oppress taxpayers is about as socialist as it gets.
They don’t care about the 10th Amendment, why would they care about the 4th?
I prefer instead the terms "collective rights" and "individual rights." The individual rights are those enshrined in our Bill of Rights, as well as those found here and there in the body of the Constitution itself. "Collective rights," however, are supposedly rights to things like food, housing, employment, education and health care. Most Americans on the left like to point to the South African Constitution as a "model" of granting collective rights, since those rights are all found there. What the left doesn't want people to know is that the real source of those "rights" is the Soviet constitution, from which the South African constitution was cut and pasted. Of course, it makes sense, since the ANC leadership were all Soviet communists.
I consider collective rights to be inherently in conflict with individual rights. You cannot have an enforcement of collective rights without an encroachment on the individual ones. And what is not pointed out is that collective rights are not really rights at all. To go down the list of these rights, do I have the "right" to a college degree, a job that pays $1 million per year, to live in a huge home and to eat steak and lobster for dinner every night? I may think I do, but realistically, we all know that isn't possible.
So what happens is that the State determines how much of your "rights" you get through process of rationing. That ration is determined on a political, not economic basis. You get what the State says you get, and if you are a "kulak," the State takes what it says it will take. "Collective Rights" come right out of Stalin's playbook, with his forced collectivization, five-year plans, and gigantic state planning agency, Gosplan. Don't forget all the repression that comes with it to make it work.
But it doesn't work; it's a bad business plan. That's why the USSR went out of business. The academics and power hungry activists on the left don't care about that. They care about advancing their totalitarian agenda, and collective rights are a very useful tool.
The HUD decree is a perfect example of "collective rights" in action.
The French revolution was about equality. ~ MNnice
Exactly!
Abolish HUD.
Must be done by Trump on day one.
I did exactly as you did. I didn’t take too kindly to their threat to escalate either. Their notices were destroyed.
The rights usurped by government are in direct defiance of Article 10, yet we continue to tolerate it. These days, it's a rare individual who even asks if the government has the authority to do what it proposes. They simply accept that whatever the government wants, it should get.
That is exactly the opposite of what our country was founded on. Increasing collectivization REQUIRES a corresponding lack of freedom for the citizenry. It is implicit in the notion of Social Contract.
Cuz it’s NOT FAIR that after spending years in school, earning your MBA and sweat-busting your way up the corporate ladder, you get to live in a place with better schools for your kids.
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.