Posted on 01/13/2024 12:57:58 PM PST by thegagline
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against anti-camping ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, saying it’s unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment of no “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Absolutely illogical take on that amendment. The amendment obviously applies to those charged with criminal or even civil violations of the law. Notice also that it reads cruel and unusual not cruel or unusual. Meaning the punishment to be forbidden must be both cruel and unusual. For example putting a prisoner in solitary might be considered cruel but there is nothing unusual about it.
In any case the amendment should never have been applied to how a city decided to deal with the homeless population.
Vagabonds, drunkards, and bums have existed throughout history even in Philadelphia 250 years ago, and when they drafted the founding documents there is no mention of cleaning up the dregs of society as cruel and unusual. Thus any modern interpretation that claims otherwise is clearly at odds with the framers’ intent on this (non) issue.
Fix should get with the program and binge up on their wokeness. They are no longer the homeless; they are the “unhoused”.
There you go...
-PJ
I got kicked off a local forum for insisting on using the word “Bums”. Boo Hoo
Before the Supreme Court rules they should allow a thousand homeless people to live on the Supreme Court grounds for one year.
At the end of the year I would expect a 9-0 decision with no debate.
;-)
I believe the politically correct term is “street leech.”
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.