So say U.S. District Judge Barker.
https://conservativebrief.com/federal-judge-rules-36112/

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:06:45 -0800 (PST), Dean
Hoffman wrote:

So say U.S. District Judge Barker.
https://conservativebrief.com/federal-judge-rules-36112/

I'm not really surprised, though I haven't looked at the amendment or
the agency rule that prohibited evictions.

But I know there is a clause in the constituion preventing interference
in contracts--- I just cant remember if that restricts the states or the
feds.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 02:56:43 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:06:45 -0800 (PST), Dean
Hoffman wrote:

So say U.S. District Judge Barker.
https://conservativebrief.com/federal-judge-rules-36112/

I'm not really surprised, though I haven't looked at the amendment or
the agency rule that prohibited evictions.

But I know there is a clause in the constituion preventing interference
in contracts--- I just cant remember if that restricts the states or the
feds.

Originally the constitution only defined federal powers. (10th
amendment)
The current thinking in some circles is the 14th amendment extends any
right or power the constitution gives the feds down to the states and
vice versa. That has been stretched to the breaking point.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:34:31 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 02:56:43 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:06:45 -0800 (PST), Dean
Hoffman wrote:

So say U.S. District Judge Barker.
https://conservativebrief.com/federal-judge-rules-36112/

I didnt' read this until now.

I'm not really surprised, though I haven't looked at the amendment or

I don't know what I meant here by "amendment".

the agency rule that prohibited evictions.

Which turned out to be reinforced by a law passed last December, *in the
previous session*, and then reissued under Biden.

But I know there is a clause in the constituion preventing interference
in contracts--- I just cant remember if that restricts the states or the
feds.

I looked that up. I meant "Article 1, Section 10: Powers Denied to the
States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass
any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

So, No state shall...pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts. That's what I had in mind and it restricts the states, but
surprisingly, maybe, there is no such limit afaik on the feds. So
afaik with the right law, the feds can impair othe obligation of
contracts. I don't know if they ever have, but if challenged, the fact
that the states are explicity restricted from doing that seeme to me to
be a good argument tha the feds are permitted. Wow.

So the major reason I was surprised is gone.

Then there are the arguments against, only looking at the url above. I'm
never impressed by the argument that it wasn't done before. That's like
icing on a cake but first you need a cake. Here, the court cited the
Spanish flue and the Depression. They didn't do it then, so what? Our
standards are different now OTOH, the original moratorium was not about
protecting life but enabling or not restricting commerce. Has our
understanding of that changed?

And then is that the original moratorium was based on the Commerce
clause. Evictions do have an interstate effect, of course, but
basically they take place between a house or apartment and the street
outside. (In NY, landlords are not allowed to put one's belongings on
the street. They have to put it in storage, guarantee to the storage
company, 1 or 2 months rent, which the tenant has to pay to get his
things out. If not they're auctioned and I think the landlord gets the
proceeds up to the amount that he paid in storage fees, and maybe the
storage company gets the rest, if there is any.

(I have a friend who for a long time ran a ministorage company, and they
didn't have auctions, but when things were left behind, they had a few
people, and they'd call one and he'd come over and buy the stuff, or
maybe he got it for free in return for cleaning out the locker. This
copany never locked renters out from getting their stuff (Like landlords
do who put things on the street or even in storage) , and that's a major
reason even though she's a little girl, she was never threatened in the
20 years she ran the place. Never robbed either, even though she
worked alone 80% of the time in an isolated office. (It did have a lot
of windows on 2 sides but there usually no one outside.))


Originally the constitution only defined federal powers. (10th
amendment)

The current thinking in some circles is the 14th amendment extends any
right or power the constitution gives the feds down to the states and
vice versa.

Right, yes. I don't know about "any power". Some small circles maybe,
but the SC hasn't found that, even wrt rights. Of course, if someone
has a need and thinks application of the US Constiution would help him,
he'll make an argument. I expect you would too and I'd be surprised if
you said to your lawyer, On no, we can't do that because it violates
states rights. When people have a need, or even a want, they'll use any
argument they can find. They'll often even break the law or use violence
so those who use only the courts pat themselves on the back that they
don't do that and ignore the fact that if someone else made the same
argument their lawyer is making, they'd have condemned it.

That has been stretched to the breaking point.

What would make it break? Break sounds stronger than "not successful".

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:33:15 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:34:31 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 02:56:43 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:06:45 -0800 (PST), Dean
Hoffman wrote:

So say U.S. District Judge Barker.
https://conservativebrief.com/federal-judge-rules-36112/

I didnt' read this until now.

I'm not really surprised, though I haven't looked at the amendment or

I don't know what I meant here by "amendment".

the agency rule that prohibited evictions.

Which turned out to be reinforced by a law passed last December, *in the
previous session*, and then reissued under Biden.

But I know there is a clause in the constituion preventing interference
in contracts--- I just cant remember if that restricts the states or the
feds.

I looked that up. I meant "Article 1, Section 10: Powers Denied to the
States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass
any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

So, No state shall...pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts. That's what I had in mind and it restricts the states, but
surprisingly, maybe, there is no such limit afaik on the feds. So
afaik with the right law, the feds can impair othe obligation of
contracts. I don't know if they ever have, but if challenged, the fact
that the states are explicity restricted from doing that seeme to me to
be a good argument tha the feds are permitted. Wow.

So the major reason I was surprised is gone.

Then there are the arguments against, only looking at the url above. I'm
never impressed by the argument that it wasn't done before. That's like
icing on a cake but first you need a cake. Here, the court cited the
Spanish flue and the Depression. They didn't do it then, so what? Our
standards are different now OTOH, the original moratorium was not about
protecting life but enabling or not restricting commerce. Has our
understanding of that changed?

And then is that the original moratorium was based on the Commerce
clause. Evictions do have an interstate effect, of course, but
basically they take place between a house or apartment and the street
outside. (In NY, landlords are not allowed to put one's belongings on
the street. They have to put it in storage, guarantee to the storage
company, 1 or 2 months rent, which the tenant has to pay to get his
things out. If not they're auctioned and I think the landlord gets the
proceeds up to the amount that he paid in storage fees, and maybe the
storage company gets the rest, if there is any.

(I have a friend who for a long time ran a ministorage company, and they
didn't have auctions, but when things were left behind, they had a few
people, and they'd call one and he'd come over and buy the stuff, or
maybe he got it for free in return for cleaning out the locker. This
copany never locked renters out from getting their stuff (Like landlords
do who put things on the street or even in storage) , and that's a major
reason even though she's a little girl, she was never threatened in the
20 years she ran the place. Never robbed either, even though she
worked alone 80% of the time in an isolated office. (It did have a lot
of windows on 2 sides but there usually no one outside.))


Originally the constitution only defined federal powers. (10th
amendment)

The current thinking in some circles is the 14th amendment extends any
right or power the constitution gives the feds down to the states and
vice versa.

Right, yes. I don't know about "any power". Some small circles maybe,
but the SC hasn't found that, even wrt rights. Of course, if someone
has a need and thinks application of the US Constiution would help him,
he'll make an argument. I expect you would too and I'd be surprised if
you said to your lawyer, On no, we can't do that because it violates
states rights. When people have a need, or even a want, they'll use any
argument they can find. They'll often even break the law or use violence
so those who use only the courts pat themselves on the back that they
don't do that and ignore the fact that if someone else made the same
argument their lawyer is making, they'd have condemned it.

That has been stretched to the breaking point.

What would make it break? Break sounds stronger than "not successful".

One of the justification of violating the 10th amendment is all
federal rights and immunities are expanded to the states so the feds
can give you rights a state can't revoke. The problem came when LBJ
and Nixon decided that meant powers too and they passed a whole lot of
laws that violate the 10th amendment and the only "right" that is
conveyed is spending the rest of your life in federal prison.
This eviction moratorium, declared administratively, not even by
legislation that voids contracts that do not involve federal money or
interstate commerce, is clearly unconstitutional on several points.
(Primarily 5th and 10th amendment)
If a bureaucrat in DC can declare the "right" to stiff your landlord
whom you signed a legally binding contract, we have lost a major
factor in the rule of law.
This would not pass SCOTUS scrutiny with this court.
I have a feeling Biden would pay off the landlords with some kind of
"grant" before he has that case in the news.
Hell it's only money, we don't even have to print anymore, just have
the Fed make some up on a computer and put it on our tab.