It’d be nice to read something about how AFH is implemented and how that violates 4A...but I don’t get it from this article.
Yes, it would have been helpful if the author had briefly discussed the details of implementation in this article. The devil is always in the details.
I wonder what this new agency rule (yet another example of regulations taking the place of duly enacted laws) will cost the American taxpayer to subsidize home ownership in areas that are beyond the financial means of people? You can bet the price tag will be huge.
Yep, it also looks like a “non-article” to me. By definition, any law impacting property rights can be framed as a 4th amendment violation. This’d include existing stuff like building codes or anti discrimination in the sales of real estate.
When the article references criminals - that one I’ve heard of before. Landlords are typically allowed to do criminal background checks on prospective tenants. As long as they did it for all applicants it was ok and not considered discriminatory. Now, the feds have jumped in and said any background check is discriminatory.
I assume the point of this article is in the same vein, but don’t see it either.
I thought the same thing and was about to post about it.
I think they meant 5th Amendment, the taking of property requires just compensation, and the taking can only be for a public use.
The Govt. is going to SUBSIDIZE LOW INCOME and CRIMINALS to be able to buy homes in YOUR neighborhood!