Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: flada
Not to quibble over fine details, but it's actually the 4th Amendment that prohibits the seizing of private property.

Wasn't this the basis for one of Thomas' complaints, namely, that the security of your possessions WITHIN your house is protected, but the house itself is not anymore?

-PJ

60 posted on 06/28/2005 12:46:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too

If that's the case, then this decision flies in the face of Soldal vs. Cook County in which a unanimous USSC overturned lower courts stating that if the 4th Amendment protects property, that one's home is certainly property and therefore protected.

In Soldal, the complainant alleged that his 4th Amendment rights were violated when the Cook County Sheriff's Dept. aided his landlord in towing his trailer off of the lot without the necessary eviction order. (If I seem to know a good deal about this case, it's because the lovely Mrs. Flada is also Mr. Soldal's daughter.)


76 posted on 06/28/2005 1:21:15 PM PDT by flada (Y2K? What are you selling, chicken or sex jelly?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson