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?
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,