[HankArcher]

“Those on the side of mortgage relief usually do. Those on the side of mortgage enforcement tend to lose out. Homeownership is compelling; the property rights of lenders are not. That, at any rate, appears to be the current American consensus.”

Comrades Chavez and Castro applaud.

[HankArcher]

“Those on the side of mortgage relief usually do. Those on the side of mortgage enforcement tend to lose out. Homeownership is compelling; the property rights of lenders are not. That, at any rate, appears to be the current American consensus.”

Comrades Chavez and Castro applaud.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.

[kbennkc]

This should not do much to encourage lending in the state . This would seem to me to be an unconstitutional taking . If I can not pursue my statutory first remedy , foreclosure , I am sure they will also prohibit me from suing on the note . Suddenly my accounts receivable are not looking likely to be received .

[machenation]

Thank for a very good posting.
I think that when the court takes the imagined rights of the people away, there will be such a massive outcry that the congress will have to do their job and submit a constitutional amendment like they have been avoiding for decades.

[justiceseeker93]

There are so many infamous SCOTUS rulings since 1933 that limiting the discussion to a mere dozen hardly does justice (no pun intended) to the subject of how the SCOTUS has been chopping away at constitutionally guaranteed liberty.

One that should be in every list is Wickard v. Filburn(1942), where the SCOTUS dismantled any limits to the scope of "interstate commerce" as used in the Constitution, thereby allowing the federal government to fine a farmer for using part of his crop to feed his family.