Posted on 05/17/2006 9:11:44 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The problem is, what YOU think is a law (force) based on morality is different than what Hillary thinks is a law based on morality.
The Taliban have a moral vision too.
My wife and I thumbed our nose at just such a law before we were married.
A case from 1977, which, as I pointed out in #94 to another poster, is distinguished in the opinion itself from the Belle Terre case, where that ordinance affected precisely unrelated individuals:
But one overriding factor sets this case apart from Belle Terre. The ordinance there affected only unrelated individuals. It expressly allowed all who were related by "blood, adoption, or marriage" to live together, and in sustaining the ordinance we were careful to note that it promoted "family needs" and "family values." [emphasis mine] 416 U.S., at 9 . East Cleveland, in contrast, has chosen to regulate the occupancy of its housing by slicing deeply into the family itself. This is no mere incidental result of the ordinance. On its face it selects certain [431 U.S. 494, 499] categories of relatives who may live together and declares that others may not. In particular, it makes a crime of a grandmother's choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here.
Moreover, because the Court did not overturn Belle Terre it thereby implicitly recognized the power of the Legislature to define "family" within certain boundaries:
Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. 12 It is through the family that we inculcate and [431 U.S. 494, 504] pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural. 13
There is absolutely nothing in this majority opinion or dissent that undermines the defintion of family as held in Belle Terre, and absolutely nothing in it that challenges that a muncipaliy has power to "ordain single-family residential occupancy", within the boundaries recognized in Belle Terre:
The city has undisputed power to ordain single-family residential [431 U.S. 494, 539] occupancy. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, supra; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 . And that power plainly carries with it the power to say what a "family" is. Here the city has defined "family" to include not only father, mother, and dependent children, but several other close relatives as well. The definition is rationally designed to carry out the legitimate governmental purposes identified in the Belle Terre opinion: "The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people." 416 U.S., at 9 . 9
Stewart, dissent
Why do you want constitutional due process ignored?
The mere fact that I think your interpretation of MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) is incorrect, and that I (along with the S.C., as of now) disagree with your desire to legally redefine "family" does not mean that I want constitutional due process ignored.
Cordially,
Then what are we disagreeing about? That was precisely my point; that any law and it implied use of force is based on someone's notion of morality, and the sticking point is determining exactly where government defined morality differs from morality itself.
Cordially,
I enjoyed your post very much.
In fact, I was saying that when we give government the power to make laws based on thier idea of morality, we might get the horrible consequences that the Afghan people and now the Iranian people got.
In a free society, laws should be based upon defending the rights of the citizens, nothing more.
Short of making war and defending rights, government never does anything better than civil society.
How is a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits Congress from doing certain things in direct violation of the 1st Commandment?
Cordially,
That's what it sounded like to me. Why else bring up a brutal and murderous Islamic dictatorship in the context of a Republic that sprang from from Judeo-Christian roots?
In fact, I was saying that when we give government the power to make laws based on their idea of morality, we might get the horrible consequences that the Afghan people and now the Iranian people got.
The horrible consequences that Afghan people and the Iranian people, et al have gotten are a result of human nature coupled with Mohammedan ideology. Our Constitution and laws, on the other hand, are themselves the result of an understanding of human nature that has been tempered by Judeo-Christian principles. The contrast between the two could not be greater, and it seems a little overwrought to me to conflate the two at the slightest mention of Christian morality.
Cordially,
Interesting observation. Question, should western governments make laws that enforce the ten commandments?
Some Islamic governments make laws that enforce the Koran. Just an observation.
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.
There is absolutely nothing in this majority opinion or dissent that undermines the defintion of family as held in Belle Terre, and absolutely nothing in it that challenges that a muncipaliy has power to "ordain single-family residential occupancy"
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?
The mere fact that I think your interpretation of MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) is incorrect,
Its more than mere 'interpretation'. You're rejecting 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. -- This is 'zoning' tyranny.
and that I (along with the S.C., as of now) disagree
Harlen does not disagree. He 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, . . --"
The ordinance in question is an arbitrary, purposeless restraint on the couples liberty to live in a 'single family' area.
with your desire to legally redefine "family" does not mean that I want constitutional due process ignored.
Coulda fooled me.
Cordially,
I can't control what you see when you read what I write. Perhaps I am not a good writer, or, maybe, you didn't read it thoughtfully enough, but instead projected upon it. Could be a bit of both.
Why else bring up a brutal and murderous Islamic dictatorship in the context of a Republic that sprang from from Judeo-Christian roots?
The context was government and morality, not any specific government. I have already explained to you why it won't work here in the long run anymore than it has worked elsewhere. Hillary's mortality vs Calvin Coolidge's.
Government is force, not morality. God doesn't need our pathetic violence to reign over the universe.
I wouldn't want to live next door to an alcoholic who abuses his family; I wouldn't want to live next door to a child predator, I wouldn't want to live next door to a queer couple, I wouldn't want to live next door to a thief, and I wouldn't want to live next door to a houseful of perverts.
Good for the Town of Black Jack!!!!
Justify it however you like,
Shacking up is shacking up - disgusting low-lifes.
I guess you wouldn't live next door to Jesus as he hung with such types....
And if someone doesn't want to live next door to you? Would you approve of them passing a law to make you conform to the way they want you to live?
The ordinance in question would not prevent a "queer couple" from living next to you.
A very telling typo. :^}
Our Constitution and laws, on the other hand, are themselves the result of an understanding of human nature that has been tempered by Judeo-Christian principles.
Yet here you are, arguing against our Constitutions understanding of the due process of law.
"-- Understanding those reasons requires careful attention to this Court's function under the Due Process Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan described it eloquently:
". . . [T]he 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, . . . --"
Cordially,
I have read it several times, but if I am to take your meaning of Justice Harlan then the very Justices you rely on for authority in MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) and who quoted Harlan therein, themselves would have explicitly affirmed a denial of due process by their affirmation of and reliance upon Belle Terre 's definition of "family", and the power of municipalities to define the same within the boundaries of Belle Terre principles in their zoning ordinances. That these Justices would quoted Harlan on due process being ignored to mean the opposite of what they intended and ruled is highly unlikely.
If you have any other case law to support your proposition I'm all ears. There may be some, but this one isn't it.
Cordially,
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.