A Constitutional Giant in the Land of Lilliput
Federal Court Rules CDC's COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Is Unlawful | ZeroHedge
"Under the moratorium, tenants who have lost income during the pandemic can declare under penalty of perjury that they’ve made their best effort to pay rent on time. The CDC claimed the measure was necessary to prevent people from having to enter overcrowded conditions if they were evicted, which would, according to the agency, impact public health.
Previously, the CDC’s lawyers argued in court filings that Congress authorized the eviction freeze as part of its COVID-19 relief legislation, while simultaneously asserting that the moratorium was within its authority. Those arguments were rejected by the three-panel appeals court on Friday.
But last month, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision rejected a different plea by landlords to end the ban on evictions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh had written in an opinion (pdf) that while he believes that the CDC had exceeded its authority by implementing the moratorium, he voted against ending it because the policy is set to expire July 31.
“Those few weeks,” he wrote, “will allow for additional and more orderly distribution” of the funds that Congress has appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need because of the pandemic.
The CDC moratorium has faced pushback from property owners as well as the National Association of Realtors.
“Landlords have been losing over $13 billion every month under the moratorium, and the total effect of the CDC’s overreach may reach up to $200 billion if it remains in effect for a year,” said the organization in an emergency petition to the Supreme Court.".......
Although we barely have a Rule of Law anymore, Justice Thomas is proven right by History.
He weighs in on ‘Kelo’:
“Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land…postpones even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use”.
Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a ‘Public Purpose’ Clause (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is “legitimate” and the means “not irrational”. This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use”. I cannot agree.
If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use”, any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution.
I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. This would contradict a bedrock principle well established by the time of the founding: that all takings required the payment of compensation.
The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever. The Public Use Clause, in short, embodied the Framers’ understanding that property is a natural, fundamental right, prohibiting the government from “taking property from A and giving it to B.”
Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. Obliterating a provision of the Constitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied.
The conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”.......
It is so fitting somehow that the beneficiary back then was Pfizer, since they helped cause the Plandemic today, which was used to justify this current theft from landlords.
If the government is going to confiscate private property to house the economic victims of their own Plandemic, they should at least pay for it. Sure, that's bad, too, but the delayed theft from taxpayers is better than the outright theft from landlords.
Or, better yet, the Occupation Government could quit inflicting Plandemics on us in the pfirst place.
Just a thought.
At this point, I no longer think this CDC robbery was committed to help renters, but as the Marxist subversion of property rights for the Many, while driving landlords into insolvency, making their properties are available to Biden's billionaire buddies at Blackrock--the Few.
In 'Kelo', the city confiscated and tore down Susan Kelo’s house, but Pfizer never came through with the re-development they promised. Thus private property was razed and the Constitution was raped–for nothing.
And now, once again.
 |
| Put your hand down if you don't really mean it, lady. We're chock-full of Pfizer-phonies as it is. |
The Old Folks Boogie--UPDATA: Biden DOJ Drops Investigations of All Democrat Governors Whose Actions Killed Tens of Thousands of Seniors in Nursing Homes with COVID (thegatewaypundit.com)
“Getting away with murder–“It’s Different When We Do It(tm)!”“
No comments:
Post a Comment