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.
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.
Prediction - fewer places are available to rent.
”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.