The US Supreme Court clarifies that a constitutional violation is complete at the time property is taken.
As a property rights advocate/activist, I am beyond thrilled.
Local governments be forewarned, the path to pursue when property owner’s constitutional rights have been violated has just been shortened. Zoning ordinances which have grown to be nearly as large as the worlds largest fungus might now face appropriate challenges in venues that serve as constitutional protectors.
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has smashed a ‘takings’ precedent, and in doing so has made it easier for property owners beset with zealous planning and land use prohibition to clarify more immediately where a constitutional line is drawn. From the SCOTUS blog:
In its long-awaited opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that plaintiffs alleging that local governments have violated the takings clause may proceed directly in federal court, rather than first litigating in state court. The opinion overrules a 34-year-old precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, triggering a sharp dissent and another debate among the justices about the meaning of stare decisis. The majority opinion also rests on a reading of the takings clause—that a constitutional violation occurs at the moment property is “taken,” even if compensation is paid later—that may have consequences beyond this case.
The takings clause of the federal Constitution provides: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This takings case arose from a dispute between petitioner Rose Mary Knick and the township of Scott, Pennsylvania. Knick has a small graveyard on her property, and the township attempted to enforce against her an ordinance requiring such properties to be open to the public during daytime hours. Knick alleged an unconstitutional taking, but a federal court dismissed her suit because she had not first sought compensation in state court.
The 34-year-old precedent was not all that it upended.
Globalization of healthcare marches merrily onward with a Michigan bill hearing this week. Corporate lobbies always play a strong role at these events. This time, there’s a twist.
Big Healthcare lobbied for Obamacare in Congress, and drives most healthcare bills in DC and Lansing. More obscure healthcare lobbies are leading centralization of state health occupational licensure. It still violates market principles, and it’s important to your healthcare.
Individual healthcare rights are losing out to population care. Given what’s at stake, we should probably make an effort to push back on this one.
It’s not on the website yet, but the next meeting of the SE Michigan Tea Party will be featuring former Michigan State Senator Pat Colbeck who will be discussing the Michigan Grassroots Alliance which is an organization to coordinate interactions with elected officials, community leaders and candidates for public office with vendors and PACs.
The event will be held on Tuesday, May 21st at the Dave and Busters in Utica at the corner of Hall Road & the M-53 expressway. Doors open at 6:00pm and the meeting starts at 7:00pm.
If anyone is interested in learning more about the Michigan Grassroots Alliance, you can read more about them at their website or on Facebook.
The first-term Democrat testified before the Senate Oversight Committee, where she used her opening statement to dispel what she called “misconceptions” about the unit she officially launched last month.
“We are not policing thoughts or words,” Nessel told lawmakers. “While some people in this state may choose to exercise their right to free speech by thinking hateful thoughts, saying hateful words or associating with hate-filled people, as attorney general it is my job to protect that right, not to prosecute it, even if I vehemently disagree with those thoughts, words or associations.“
Michigan's new thought police effort violates the 1st and 14th Amendments according to lawsuit by AFLC
Some of Michigan’s new administration’s nonsense goes beyond ‘virtue signalling’ or shaming.
We’ve had a few minutes for it to settle in. But the bottom line is that Michigan’s newest Attorney General Dana Nessel is clearly using the power of the state to persecute those who would disagree with her worldview. To the level legally possible, she is using public monies to pressure those who have something to say to either shut up or be pilloried in the court of public opinion.
And this publicly funded defamation, riding under the guise of fighting ‘hate speech’ is being done indiscriminately, and lazily. Nessel’s new thought police unit is using a map to target, and developed by the SPLC, a private, ideologically driven legal services cult that frequently identifies churches or family organizations as hate groups.
One of those groups is having none of it.
In a lawsuit naming (the new hate crimes unit) DANA NESSEL, and AGUSTIN V. ARBULU (Michigan dept of civil rights director), the American Freedom Law Center has charged that Nessel has officially sanctioned the SPLC’s opinions as those of the state, putting groups like the AFLC officially under the umbrella of hate as described by a private entity. Officially sanctioning the partisan opinions with the use of taxpayer dollars and the authority of the office to punish free speech and educational activities engaged in by the AFLC.
The first question should be, much like any homicide, does current statute prevent anything? If no, then what’s the point of criminalizing another whole new group of people other than to backdoor prohibition?
State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud concedes that his goal is not just to eliminate drunken driving. He wants to keep anybody who has consumed any amount of alcohol from getting behind the wheel.
“Drink, or drive,” said Hammoud, D-Dearborn. “Choose one. It should never be both.”
Hammoud, 29, a non-drinker with a background in public health, introduced a package of bills last week that would lower the threshold for drunken driving to a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05, from the current 0.08.
Hammoud a non-drinker? Allah-Shazam! Guess what? He’s a non-pork eater too. Shall we criminalize eating bacon? Why not, Abdullah’s Democrat Party buddy, Alexithymia Ocashew-Cortex wants to ban cow farts, and am pretty sure pigs fart too so, let’s not offend any moslems, right? 🤦♂️