Posted on 08/09/2021 12:29:30 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Supine Court of The United States- You haven’t heard?
A judge is unsure about possessing power? Without looking, I’m going to guess that this helps the Left.
Yep.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings
A taking is when the government seizes private property for public use.
A taking can come in two forms. The taking may be physical, which means that the government literally takes the property from its owner). Or the taking may be constructive (also called a regulatory taking), which means that the government restricts the owner's rights so much that the governmental action becomes the functional equivalent of a physical seizure.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates that if the government takes private property for public use, the government must provide "just compensation." Typically, a "just compensation" is determined by an appraisal of the property's fair market value. However, depending on the size and unique nature of the land, it may be difficult to determine the fair market value.
Many types of government action infringe on private property rights. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment's compensation requirement is not limited to government seizures of real property. Instead, it extends to all kinds of tangible and intangible property, including but not limited to easements, personal property, contract rights, and trade secrets.
In United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745 (1947), the Supreme Court held that even if the government does not physically seize private property, the action is still a taking "when inroads are made upon an owner’s use of it to an extent that, as between private parties, a servitude has been acquired either by agreement or in course of time.”
Many regulatory takings disputes arise in the context of land use regulation. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), the Supreme Court held that it there is not a requirement for government compensation where such regulations "substantially advance legitimate governmental interests," and as long as the regulations do not prevent a property owner from making “economically viable use of his land.”
Courts broadly interpret the Fifth Amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare. In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Supreme Court allowed a taking when the government used eminent domain to seize private property to facilitate a private development. The Court considered the taking to be a public use because the community would enjoy the furthering of economic development. Further, the Kelo court determined that a governmental claim of eminent domain is justified if the seizure is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.
The Kelo decision significantly broadened the government's takings power. This caused significant controversy, and states were quick to act to quell concerns about this expansion of power. In response to Kelo, many states have passed laws which have restricted governments' takings abilities (such as implementing a stricter definition of what constitutes a "public use," requiring heightened levels of scrutiny to justify an action categorized as a taking, etc).
Generally, the government must pay the market value of seized property. There are, however, many exceptions. The government need not compensate a property owner for the portion of the property's value created by that government.
For example, in United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488 (1973), the Supreme Court held that when the federal government condemned a rancher's grazing land, it did not owe compensation for the portion of the land's value derived from its proximity to adjacent, federally owned grazing land.
Sometimes, a government regulation infringes upon private property ownership to such an extent that the regulation can be considered a taking, thus requiring just compensation. The Supreme Court, over a series of regulatory takings cases, has developed a 4-part test to determine whether a regulation is considered to be a taking.
Even if a government regulation is deemed a taking, it still may be viewed as justified, as long as it meets the noxious use test, also known as the Mugler-Hadacheck test. Under this test, a regulation adopted under the police power to protect the public health, safety, or welfare is not a taking, even if the taking reduces the value of property.
Under First Evangelical (1987), the appropriate remedy for a taking will typically consist of compensatory damages.
The plaintiff's lawyer (Brett Shumate) seems to have pointed out the obvious: Kavanaugh would have switched his vote had he known that July 31 would be extended... and unlike the others, he spelled out his reasoning. So that's the answer to Friedrich's question.
More accurately, the guy was stealing his down-payment from his landlord. . . .
“Two separate programs have been established: ERA1 provides up to $25 billion under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which was enacted on December 27, 2020, and ERA2 provides up to $21.55 billion under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which was enacted on March 11, 2021.”
Tenants under the original CDC “moratorium” were expected to apply for rental payment help. Many had seven months to do so.
Looks like even the judges no longer have “standing” to do anything about this clear violation of the “takings clause”.
This isn't a case of "Let's impeach this guy because we don't like him." as the Democrats did with President Trump.
It was a flagrant and deliberate violation of the Constitution! No ifs ands or buts about it!
What do you call a failed attorney?
Wait for it...
“Your Honor.”
“I have used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;”
“I am using best efforts to make timely partial payments that are as close to the full payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit, taking into account other non-discretionary expenses.”
Original CDC declaration form
https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2021/03/CDC%20Declaration%2C%20English.pdf
Article 8 of the US Constitution:
“All the foregoing and any Amendments attached thereto are suspended indefinitely in case of a pandemic. Should there be a pandemic all power will be ceded to the Executive Branch who will have absolute unquestioned say on all matter Great and Small.”
100% lucky he dint get dead
“Judges” are tyrants in black robes.
The CDC is not a law-making body. Notes to that affect can be found close to the beginning of the Constitution.
The judge doesn’t want to wake up dead tomorrow morning.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
With all due respect to the post FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated judge, the judge is asking the wrong question imo.
More specifically, patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate either INTRAstate quarantine policy, or to dictate INTRAstate rental policy.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”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.
Regarding no federal power to dictate intrastate healthcare-related policy, here's excerpts from the historical writings of several constitutional experts starting with PresidentThomas Jefferson, the excerpts clarifying no federal power to dictate such policy.
"Many are the exercises of power reserved to the States wherein a uniformity of proceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, health laws [emphasis added], regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, etc., etc." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807.
”State inspection laws, health laws [emphasis added], and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embrace every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation, though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." --Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
Also, if the feds actually did have the constitutional authority to dictate intrastate quarantine and rental policy, then lawmakers would have to take full responsibility for such policy whether they want to or not, and not protect their voting records by hiding behind non-elected bureaucrats like those running the constitutionally overreaching CDC.
The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government run by desperate, alleged election-stealing Democrats oppressing everybody under their boots with planned mandatory experimental "vaccine..."
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
The commie judge in Texas disagrees.
Predating that was the auto company bailouts. The gubermint took them over, stiffed the bondholders (who had legal contract and first right), and gave the UAW more control over the companies........ contracts haven’t followed the “rule of law” for quite some time.
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.