If Miami-Dade County recently took your horses, you can now sue it directly under the Constitution to get compensated for that taking.
Okay, maybe that's getting a little too specific. Let's zoom out a bit.
The Eleventh Circuit just held that the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (and by extension, the 14th Amendment) creates an implied right of action for any taking. Before, if the government took your property, you'd have to sue under either a federal statute (42 U.S.C. §1983) or state law. Judge Rosenbaum penned the majority opinion, with Judge Abudu joining.
The case, excerpted below, came about when a county in Georgia (Fulton County) took the horses of one of its residents (believe it or not, a guy with the last name "Fulton"). In what will henceforth be confusingly known as Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners et al., the majority's reasoning turned largely on the inadequacy of the existing remedies for unconstitutional takings. For example, if you were to sue a municipality under section 1983, you'd need to establish an official policy or custom. The difficulty of doing so would deprive many property owners of their constitutional right to just compensation, the majority said.
Chief Judge Pryor dissented. His position? Courts shouldn't be in the business of manufacturing causes of action to remedy the violation of constitutional rights. That's for Congress to do. And specific to the takings issue before the Court, Pryor pointed out that Congress had already created a cause of action to address unconstitutional takings (a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983). According to him, the majority opinion had left "constitutional wreckage in its wake."
There's a lot more to it than just that. Judge Rosenbaum references the condemnation of Tantalus by Greek gods and the word "unicorn" appears no less than five times.
Also, since we have references to regular and magical horses, I thought a little horse trivia would be in order. Only thirteen horses have won the Triple Crown (the prize for winning the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont Stakes). See how many you can guess without checking the answer, which I'll post in the comments section.
Takings Order by John Byrne on Scribd
4 comments:
1. Sir Barton – 1919
2. Gallant Fox – 1930
3. Omaha – 1935
4. War Admiral – 1937
5. Whirlaway – 1941
6. Count Fleet – 1943
7. Assault – 1946
8. Citation – 1948
9. Secretariat – 1973
10. Seattle Slew – 1977
11. Affirmed – 1978
12. American Pharoah – 2015
13. Justify – 2018
And now you know how they will overturn Miranda, etc...these are constitutional rights, but Congress has to pass laws to protect them because the Constitution - the supreme law of the land, is meaningless unless Congress passes a law saying here is how it will be enforced. Or, perhaps the republicans will pass some ridiculous law implementing the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments (6th they did somewhat), which in the end will be meaningless but will have the impact of allowing the court to say 'see, this is how it is enforced, not by judicial fiat'.
But this reasoning will not to anything that the Republicans really really like, such as 2nd amendment and religious freedom. Those are protected from laws infringing upon them...but can freely be used to impose religious beliefs or open carry (which is next) upon other Americans, which unless protected by congress - are meaningless aspirations.
You think the first 6 months were bad, wait for the next 3.5 years (and possibly more).
Also, gotta love that Don and Eric own a huge portion of an SPAC so that foreign governments and investors have a tidy way of investing the money they promised in US companies.
Why have conservatives not decried the largest tax increase (tariffs) upon the American public since WWII?
I cannot wait for the parade of people who are going to come forward saying they didn't know what was going on, or they were lied to, or, they only supported more fiscally conservative government, etc., when they realize that whatever available spending money they have has gone to pay for inflated goods because of the tariffs, and they have no real protections from government overreach remaining.
The racist section of the party who do not like (brown) foreigners living in the US will have gotten some part of what they wanted - a huge and aggressive crackdown on illegal immigrants that was cruel...but in the end, they too will learn they were lied to because poor foreigners will still be everywhere in the US because large sectors of the US economy (farming, hospitality, gig work) are dependent upon illegal immigrants to provide cheap labor.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
Post a Comment