Town won't let unmarried parents live together

CNN ^ | 5/17/2006 | AP

[bigLusr]

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

[Diamond]

The 14th says so. Laws in Missouri cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law. --- The ordinance in question clearly deprives the two unrelated/unmarried parents of the right to live in a five bedroom house with their children.

I understand your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but do you have any Missouri or Federal case law that supports your prediction of a legal win for these people based on the 14th Amendment? I have referred to a 1986 Missouri Court of Appeals decision that clearly states that municipalities do have the power to issue or deny occupancy permits in such cases, that as far as I know has not been overturned.

Cordially,

[RHINO369]

Freedom isn't a legal tecnicality.

[tpaine]

--- there is nothing in the US Constitution stating that a local municipality cannot restrict who can live together. If I am wrong, please cite the applicable amendment. There might be some Federal legislation in this area, but I doubt it.

The 14th is the applicable amendment, along with the 9th, which says that unenumerated rights [like living together] are retained by the people.

The Constitution only gives certain limited rights to its citizens to make them self governing or at least that was the intent of the Founders.

Good grief. You need some help about how we are endowed with self evident inalienable rights.

It is up to the people to take it from there. The Constitution was not designed to offer protection and redress from the Courts against every silly law.

Well, at least you admit this is a "silly" law.

[tpaine]

Well put.

This issue boils down to due process..
As Justice Harlan said:

"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . --"


We have here a purposeless restraint on a couples liberty to live with their children.

[Uddercha0s]

see post 121.. I'm not going to rewwrite it.. but pray tell in the 14th amendment where it mentions anything about marriage.. for that matter.. show me please, where the Constitution mentions marriage. The Constitution gives rights (or should I say confirms them because we already have them)., to the individual. Let's see...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

life.. nope
liberty.. nope
property.. nope

they have the priveledge to be an individual and be protected under the Constitution. Straight gay or other, i will fight for their individual right to be that.

So.. do we agree it's not a constitutional issue or is this a living breathing document subject to interpretation?

If you answer no to that then it is a state/local issue.. don't like it? Vote or move.

[MBB1984]

I don't see you winning this one under the 14th Amendment and particularly under the 9th. You might have a shot under the 14th if you had a liberal judge or judges. The level of scrutiny the court would provide would be the lowest level of scrutiny as you don't have a protected class. As long as the law was rationally related to a legitimate state interest, you would fail even though it is a silly law.

[Uddercha0s]

Remember.. the Constititution protects the rights of the INDIVIDUAL!

[Kaylee Frye]

Having read earlier articles on this issue - only two of the children are related to both parents. One child is only related by blood to the mother, but not the father. As the father has not legally adopted the third child, therein lies the problem. It's a very complex law.

[tpaine]

The 14th says so. Laws in Missouri cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law. --- The ordinance in question clearly deprives the two unrelated/unmarried parents of the right to live in a five bedroom house with their children.

I understand your interpretation of the 14th Amendment,

If you do, why are you opposing it? -- Why are you supporting a local 'law' that ignores our Constitution?

but do you have any Missouri or Federal case law that supports your prediction of a legal win for these people based on the 14th Amendment?

One was already cited at #88.

I have referred to a 1986 Missouri Court of Appeals decision that clearly states that municipalities do have the power to issue or deny occupancy permits in such cases, that as far as I know has not been overturned.

Read that cite again. It quotes Justice Harlen on why due process is being ignored in such cases.
-- Why do you want constitutional due process ignored?

[Uddercha0s]

Well.. the truth hits home somewhat.. across the street from me in an approximate 400 sq ft house lives about ( and I say this cause I can't get a count even tho I stay up all kinds of hours) 10 people of hispanic descent.. (hehe.. i'm pc). and I can assure you that several are illegal. Now.. good neighbors, cool. I like that. Hard workers from what I've seen, I'll give them that too. It's this whole illegal thing that bothers me. The other troubling thing is the schools... hmm.. I pay property taxes that go to public schools.. I don't have an issue with that.. I want are kids to be the brightest.. but.. they take my money to hire spanish speaking teachers? Let's see.. what else.. hmm.. lets talk medical... now.. they go to the hospital.. the hospital is not allowed to ask them of their citizenship.. get fixed.. screw the bill. Who pays? you and I. Now, I go, have no insurance.. don't pay.. they take my house. Yes.. so lets play on this slippery slope.. this is all about constitutional issues and states rights... wanna dance?

[tpaine]

Uddercha0s wrote:

.. there is nothing in the Constitution denying their rights.. I beleive there was a little war over a disagreement like this...

And shortly after that war, the 14th was ratified, preventing States from ignoring our Constitutional rights when writing & enforcing laws.

-- tell in the 14th amendment where it mentions anything about marriage..

Read the 9th about enumerated rights.

for that matter.. show me please, where the Constitution mentions marriage.

It doesn't need to. To be married, [or not] is part of life & liberty.

The Constitution gives rights (or should I say confirms them because we already have them)., to the individual. Let's see...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

life.. nope

To be married, [or not] is part of life & liberty.

liberty.. nope

To be married, [or not] is part of life & liberty.

property.. nope

The right of the property owner to rent to anyone he chooses is being violated by the 'law' in question.

they have the priveledge to be an individual and be protected under the Constitution. Straight gay or other, i will fight for their individual right to be that. So.. do we agree it's not a constitutional issue or is this a living breathing document subject to interpretation?

It's obviously a constitutional issue, as you just spent quite some time arguing against the 14th.

If you answer no to that then it is a state/local issue.. don't like it? Vote or move.

You don't like the 14th? Try to repeal it -- or move..

[tpaine]

The Constitution only gives certain limited rights to its citizens to make them self governing or at least that was the intent of the Founders.

Good grief. You need some help about how we are endowed with self evident inalienable rights.

It is up to the people to take it from there. The Constitution was not designed to offer protection and redress from the Courts against every silly law.

Well, at least you admit this is a "silly" law.

I don't see you winning this one under the 14th Amendment and particularly under the 9th. You might have a shot under the 14th if you had a liberal judge or judges. The level of scrutiny the court would provide would be the lowest level of scrutiny as you don't have a protected class. As long as the law was rationally related to a legitimate state interest, you would fail even though it is a silly law.

Thanks for your legal advice, but pardon me for not taking it seriously, considering your bold comment on "limited" rights

[TheCrusader]

"The town decreeing that they be married and/or live as a family in a 'Christian' way is the first step in setting a state decreed religion."

Excuse this Christian for using non-Christian terminology, but that's pure bull$hit. The country was founded on Christian morals and values, which are not doctrines or dogmas. The Founding Fathers wrote that our rights are 'inalienable' because they come directly from the Creator. All Western law springs directly from the Ten Commandments and the morality they espouse. Morals and values that stem from the Christian faith do not equal a religion, but rather they uphold man's integrity, give us a purpose in life, and keep men dignified, honest and free. Even the deists and marginal Christians of America's founding era understood this, and that's why until this past generation one could find symbols and vestiges of the Christian religion in nearly every single public building, whether Town Library, Town Hall, City Hall, State Court, Senate, White House or Supreme Court. Public school books of early America taught Christian morals and often quoted from Scripture to source these moral lessons.

But it's like I said in my initial post, most Americans have taken the poisenous bait that religion is evil in government, have swallowed it whole and as a result have coughed up our souls. Don't dare complain to anyone that our freedoms are rapidly eroding, because your mentality is the reason why. You separate religion from government and you will eventually get Communism.

[Kellis91789]

"Conservative" used to mean the government didn't poke its nose into people's lives anymore than necessary.

A government that redistributes wealth and makes laws to encourage particular behaviour is "Liberalism".

A government with power to actually dictate how people and businesses operate is "Fascism".

A government that assumes ownership and direct control over people and capital is "Communism".

"Liberalism" currently prevails, and theocratic "Fascism" is possibly next. "Conservatism" is not even in the running.

[traviskicks]

"The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction."

???????????????????????????





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

[jess35]

five ILLEGAL ALIEN families living in a one bedroom apartment

The vast majority of them being Catholic. Gee, you'd think the Church would step in and alleviate their misery, wouldn't you? Gosh, I guess it's just easier to point a finger at the government and demand that they take action.

[jess35]

All Western law springs directly from the Ten Commandments and the morality they espouse.

Which explains why the 1st amendment is in direct violation of the 1st commandment.

Think it through.

[CSM]

Thanks for the new tag line.

[Protagoras]

My pleasure. I'm happy to report that I have several being used around the joint! :^}

(Ones I actually wrote myself)

Here's a new one.

[Diamond]

Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.

I think you are using a narrower definition of morality than I am.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
George Washington

Cordially,