Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/7/2005 4:12:29 PM EDT
being ordered off your own property.

He said "there is no authority under any state or federal law that can force a property owner from their property". PERIOD!

There are things like being contageous and posing a health risk to other people BUT>>>> This would have to be proven FIRST and it is not possible in an emergency.

There you have it folks. You have a right to stay within your own home and die if you want. No police officer or military official has any riht to forcibly evict you from your home under any circumstance, lacking proof that you are a danger to any other person in society.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:14:05 PM EDT
Martial Law pre-empts quite a bit, even if it will be struck down later by a court.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:18:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:21:09 PM EDT by tommygun2000]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Martial Law pre-empts quite a bit, even if it will be struck down later by a court.



RE Read my post..........NO AUTHORITY GET IT? Not martial law, not state law, not federal law.

You as a citizen have the right to stay there and starve yourself to death if you so desire.

What do you think marshal law does, makes the law the barrel of a gun?

Your rights as a citizen are not negated by martial law or any other to stay on your own property under any conditions.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:21:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Martial Law pre-empts quite a bit, even if it will be struck down later by a court.



RE Read my post..........NO AUTHORITY GET IT? Not martial law, not state law, not federal law.

You as a citizen have the right to stay there and starve yourself to death if you so desire.

What do you think marshal law does, makes the law the barrel of a gun?

Your rights as a citizen are not negated by marshal law or any other to stay on your own property under any conditions.



Oh, I get it, and in THEORY you are right. The reality is a different story. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended constitutional rights and put a lot of folks in jail. It was later overturned, but they still served time.

I realize what you are saying. There is no legal right. But some folks believe martial law means they can do anything they want, and while the home owner comes out saying "You have no right", they'll lock him up, and eventually it will get overturned.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:22:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Martial Law pre-empts quite a bit, even if it will be struck down later by a court.



RE Read my post..........NO AUTHORITY GET IT? Not martial law, not state law, not federal law.

You as a citizen have the right to stay there and starve yourself to death if you so desire.

What do you think marshal law does, makes the law the barrel of a gun?

Your rights as a citizen are not negated by marshal law or any other to stay on your own property under any conditions.



Oh, I get it, and in THEORY you are right. The reality is a different story. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended constitutional rights and put a lot of folks in jail. It was later overturned, but they still served time.

I realize what you are saying. There is no legal right. But some folks believe martial law means they can do anything they want, and while the home owner comes out saying "You have no right", they'll lock him up, and eventually it will get overturned.



True, and punitive damages can be sought for unlawful arrest and detainment.

I'm not saying whats smart, just whats legal and not.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:26:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:26:40 PM EDT by Ohio]

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
There you have it folks. You have a right to stay within your own home and die if you want. No police officer or military official has any riht to forcibly evict you from your home under any circumstance, lacking proof that you are a danger to any other person in society.




As long as that coincides with " You have no right or expectation to a rescue attempt after refusing to leave" I am very cool with it.
Same for backpackers, divers, etc. that go where they shouldn't.

Larry
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:26:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:27:22 PM EDT by warlord]
New Orleans mayor orders mandatory evacuation, but Louisiana Gov. Blanco says she will not sign off on decision

The good mayor or NOLA needs to be fired. He's doing things that are clearly illegal.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:32:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ohio:

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
There you have it folks. You have a right to stay within your own home and die if you want. No police officer or military official has any riht to forcibly evict you from your home under any circumstance, lacking proof that you are a danger to any other person in society.




As long as that coincides with " You have no right or expectation to a rescue attempt after refusing to leave" I am very cool with it.
Same for backpackers, divers, etc. that go where they shouldn't.

Larry


People are now receiving bills for their rescue from wilderness areas for going in unprepared and unskilled and getting lost. Its happened in the White Mountains of NH on more than one occasion.
People go to climb Mt Washington and end up FUBARED and need rescuing because they were not prepared for the changes in weather or were unskilled in navigating.
I'm cool with it too. Willful ignorance that endangers others should be criminal, unless you are in your own home and not endangering anyone else.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:34:46 PM EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/nationalspecial/07cnd-storm.html?hp&ex=1126152000&en=74a61f4c0aba598a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The New York Times
September 7, 2005
Authorities Increase Pressure on Holdouts in New Orleans
By ALEX BERENSON
and CHRISTINE HAUSER

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 7 - After days of pleading with residents to leave this partly destroyed city, local officials said today that they would begin forced evacuations of all residents, including people living in dry and undamaged homes.

The announcement came as some sections of the city took small steps toward recovery, a week after Hurricane Katrina struck, causing levees to burst and flooding large swaths of the city. Today, residents cleaned debris from streets and boarded up abandoned houses in some neighborhoods, while other people left voluntarily after being reached by police officers and soldiers.

As many as 10,000 people remain in the city, and some residents said they would not comply with official orders to leave their homes - which could produce ugly confrontations with police officers or soldiers.

But city officials said today that the risk of fire and disease had left them with no choice but to use force, if necessary, to evacuate anyone who resisted leaving. Police officials did not give a timetable for the forced evacuations, but said Louisiana law gives Mayor C. Ray Nagin the authority to declare martial law and order the evacuation. "There's a martial law declaration in place that gives us legal authority for mandatory evacuations," said the superintendent of police, P. Edwin Compass III, said at a news conference today. "We'll use the minimum amount of force necessary."
.
.
Floodwaters continued to recede slowly as limited pumping continued and the city remained warm. In some neighborhoods, water levels appeared to be as much as four feet lower than their peak last week, while in other neighborhoods they had dropped only a few inches.

The Environmental Protection Agency warned today that the floodwaters were contaminated with E. coli and coliform bacteria, lead and other dangerous substances, and that contact with it should be avoided. A spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Skinner, said today that at least four people had been confirmed dead from bacteria in the contaminated water.

"Human contact with the floodwater should be avoided as much as possible," the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said. Corpses are expected to be laid bare as the water recedes, and the authorities have growing concerns about gas leaks, fires, toxic water and diseases spread by mosquitoes in the fetid waters flooding the city's streets and lapping at doorsteps. As many as 20,000 may have died as a result of the hurricane and flooding, Lt. David Benelli, president of the Police Association of New Orleans, said.

Capt. Marlon Defillo of the police said that instead of forcing unwilling residents to evacuate, law enforcement authorities were focusing for now on people who wanted to be rescued. And Lt. Gen. Joseph R. Inge of the Army said at a Pentagon briefing that any such evacuations were a job for the 900 police officers in the city and that as a law enforcement issue, the regular troops would not be used.

State officials said that the decision ultimately rested with Mr. Nagin, but that Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's approval would be required before Louisiana National Guard forces, which she commands, could conduct a coercive evacuation.

"It's a very tough decision to force an American out of their home," the chief of disaster relief for the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Arthur G. Jones, said. "We're there to help them, not hurt them."

This morning, Mr. Jones said those left in the city should depart, as Mr. Nagin has repeatedly urged.

"For their own common sense, they should get out as quick as they can," Mr. Jones said. "I'm afraid that the longer they wait the worse it's going to be."

Governor Blanco, speaking before a cabinet meeting, held a moment of silence and sounded somber as she addressed her top aides. "It's as though one region of the state has been erased," she said. "The magnitude is beyond anything I could have ever imagined. "
.
.
.
At Lee Circle, Victor Mejia, 58, a janitor, stood in the shade on Tuesday and said that he had no intention of leaving. "I live here," he said. "Where am I going to go?"

Alex Berenson reported from New Orleans for this article, and Christine Hauser from New York. Reporting was contributed by Sewell Chan from Baton Rouge, La.; Jere Longman from New Orleans; Michael Cooper from Jackson, Miss.; David Stout and Anne E. Kornblut from Washington; Matthew L. Wald from Vicksburg, Miss.; and Timothy Williams from New York.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:35:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:
People are now receiving bills for their rescue from wilderness areas for going in unprepared and unskilled and getting lost. Its happened in the White Mountains of NH on more than one occasion.
People go to climb Mt Washington and end up FUBARED and need rescuing because they were not prepared for the changes in weather or were unskilled in navigating.
I'm cool with it too. Willful ignorance that endangers others should be criminal, unless you are in your own home and not endangering anyone else.



This is a good start, but I want the authorities to be able to say "Sorry 'bout his luck" when some damn fool gets in way over his head after being warned.
Too many good men risk their lives to save some dumbass that knew he shouldn't have been there to start with.

Larry
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:37:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:39:02 PM EDT by magnum_99]
Well, power and authority are two different things.

Cops in the field may not have the "authority" to arrest you illegally, but they can and do (at times) anyway.

Authority or not, unless you are prepared to meet their POWER with greater power of your own, you had better leave, or suffer the consequences.


Sort of like opposing gun laws--if and when confiscation comes, gun owners will have to decide if the .gov has the "authority" or the "power" to enforce the law, and their response.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:41:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:48:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:50:52 PM EDT by LTVN68]
The Feds are not the masters in this country...the people are...you and me. The Feds have no right to order me off my property...a man's home is his castle. If they assume the right to tresspass on my property then they are invaders to be repeled..... unless I admit them after they duly request permission. They had best remember that it was upon this basis that this country was founded. Anything less and freedom is lost. Submit to the tyranny if you want to be a subject instead of a free man. Not me.
Rant....as I am fed up with the Feds.
"Why would I go to Vietnam to fight and die for another man's freedom when I would not do that for my own freedom here at home."
Yes, I appreciate the rescue efforts, yes a lot of Feds are good guys...just the creeping loss of respect for their place as public servants and not masters that bugs me.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:48:37 PM EDT
Napolitano is one of the good guys.

That is why he is no longer a judge in New Jersey.

CRC
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:48:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.



Napolitano is not a liberal AFAIK...
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:49:55 PM EDT
Make it an eminent domain case. The holdouts wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:50:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.

That said, I don't know about the kind of situation now faced in NO. I'd imagine if Eminent Domain can cause people to be dragged off of their property for the "public good" I'd imagine people in imminent danger can be dragged away too. Dunno though.



Yes he is… a big fu*king idiot

The have declared a state of emergency.
The have declared a health emergency.

There are what appears to be cholera outbreaks and deaths in LA & MS.

The government has all it needs to force an evacuation and will face no repercussions.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:50:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:52:01 PM EDT
Gee.....you just gave up your freedom.........why don't you just move to China and bow down?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:52:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:52:55 PM EDT by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:53:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.

That said, I don't know about the kind of situation now faced in NO. I'd imagine if Eminent Domain can cause people to be dragged off of their property for the "public good" I'd imagine people in imminent danger can be dragged away too. Dunno though.



Two very different things. The Constitution allows for one (Eminent Domain), but not the other. No one can legislate your Constitutional rights away. You may have to fight it or those who try to to enforce it, but they do not have RIGHT to do what they are trying to do.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:53:57 PM EDT
Beekeeper...you have a very good point...nice how we get to rent our private property from the government in the form of property taxes.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:54:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Make it an eminent domain case. The holdouts wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


Precisely what I was thinking:


He said "there is no authority under any state or federal law that can force a property owner from their property".

Yeah? Tell that to SCOTUS
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:57:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Make it an eminent domain case. The holdouts wouldn't have a leg to stand on.



You could tie it up in court forever.

Why my property? There is a whole city to pick from in the same shape?

Compensate me. No, I want pre-hurricane value. After all, it was your flood wall that failed that caused damage to my home. I need pain and suffering compensation, too.

By the time the case ever made it to court the emergency would be over.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:58:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.

That said, I don't know about the kind of situation now faced in NO. I'd imagine if Eminent Domain can cause people to be dragged off of their property for the "public good" I'd imagine people in imminent danger can be dragged away too. Dunno though.



You're right.....you don't know. Don't confuse eminent domain(lands taken for public use) with unlawful eviction orders from ones own house by a government official......its apples and oranges.

Read the laws.



Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:58:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:00:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Make it an eminent domain case. The holdouts wouldn't have a leg to stand on.



That would never work.

You woulld need hearings and subsequent purchases of the dwellings
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:00:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
Well, power and authority are two different things.

Cops in the field may not have the "authority" to arrest you illegally, but they can and do (at times) anyway.

Authority or not, unless you are prepared to meet their POWER with greater power of your own, you had better leave, or suffer the consequences.


Sort of like opposing gun laws--if and when confiscation comes, gun owners will have to decide if the .gov has the "authority" or the "power" to enforce the law, and their response.



Yes and its going to be a very sad day indeed.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:02:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By MissouriBob:
Two very different things. The Constitution allows for one (Eminent Domain), but not the other. No one can legislate your Constitutional rights away. You may have to fight it or those who try to to enforce it, but they do not have RIGHT to do what they are trying to do.



I know--that's what I meant. I'm guessing the two are similar enough, regardless of original reason for doing so, to find some way to get it done.

The odd thing is, the very ones who are going to "not be dragged away" on this board likely would have had the good sense to flee the storm to begin with.



Wll here it seems the same one saying I would have left the city before the storm yesterday now would not leave at all.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:05:35 PM EDT
I agree that Napalitano is generally one of the good guys.

As for eminent domain - that was brought up and shot down as taking too long through the legal process to work in the courts.

The way they could force people out would be through comdemning the property. The government can then take the property at will.

-K
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:20:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
The odd thing is, the very ones who are going to "not be dragged away" on this board likely would have had the good sense to flee the storm to begin with.



How true. Oh, the irony!
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:24:51 PM EDT


How can I resist the condemnation of my property?
There are two ways. First, you can resist the taking of your property if it is not for a public use or necessity. Second, you can demand more money if the condemning agency has not offered you "just compensation."

From a legal advice site. Note: "PUBLIC USE OR NECESSITY" I find no necessity in evicting individuals who want to live in the waste and possibly die as a result. Thats their choice. Courts have long since established that police have no duty to protect any individual.

Myself.....I'd have been long gone even by foot if necessary two days ahead of the storm.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:30:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Martial Law pre-empts .



yep
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:33:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 5:35:07 PM EDT by FN-TPS]
Originaly Posted bt Tommygun2000

This (the health Emergency) would have to be proven FIRST and it is not possible in an emergency.



How long do you think it takes to get a water sample back? Of course the health emergeny can be proven. Unless your so far gone, that you think the water quality tests were faked by the evil federal Government "like the moon landings"?

What your saying here, is if I detonated a 1 megaton nuclear, weapom at ground level in down town New Orleans... their would be no reason to evac the burning city....Because you couldn't actually see or prove the existance of Radiation and thus it could not be a health factor..
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:36:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.



I concur. Ever see the show "Power of Attorney?" After having been on that show, I'm surprised he has the courage to show his face on television again.

How can you conceivably reconcile his preposterously overbroad statement (as presented in the initial post) with the eminent domain ruling recently handed down by the United States Supreme Court?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:40:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FN-TPS:
Originaly Posted bt Tommygun2000

This (the health Emergency) would have to be proven FIRST and it is not possible in an emergency.



How long do you think it takes to get a water sample back? Of course the health emergeny can be proven. Unless your so far gone, that you think the water quality tests were faked by the evil federal Government "like the moon landings"?

What your saying here, is if I detonated a 1 megaton nuclear, weapom at ground level in down town New Orleans... their would be no reason to evac the burning city....Because you couldn't actually see or prove the existance of Radiation and thus it could not be a health factor..



Hey fucknuts!!! Don't shoot at me, I'm telling you what the judge said. Even if there were a health emergency, if the person is not a contageous carrier and affecting other people(which one wouldn't be from the confines of their own home), the government has no authority to evict them.

You looking for a fight? call the judge. Christ!!! Do you jump on the mailman for bringing your bills in the mail? Take a fucking chill pill dude!
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:44:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.



I concur. Ever see the show "Power of Attorney?" After having been on that show, I'm surprised he has the courage to show his face on television again.

How can you conceivably reconcile his preposterously overbroad statement (as presented in the initial post) with the eminent domain ruling recently handed down by the United States Supreme Court?



Because eminent domain is the structured taking of property through hearings and compensation offered for property to be used for public use, not unlawful eviction. Theres a difference, theoretically and legally.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:52:01 PM EDT
Thank you for blindly repeating something a talking head said on Fox news, and taking it as legal advice.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:52:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.



I concur. Ever see the show "Power of Attorney?" After having been on that show, I'm surprised he has the courage to show his face on television again.

How can you conceivably reconcile his preposterously overbroad statement (as presented in the initial post) with the eminent domain ruling recently handed down by the United States Supreme Court?



This is also the same "genius" judge that said Florida's new law terminating "duty to retreat" was giving us the ability to shoot without cause.

He's such an idiot he didn't even read the law before he commented on it.
Kept calling it "castle domain". We've had that for YEARS. This law just opened it up outside of the home. Again, he's a moron.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:56:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 6:01:12 PM EDT by legalese77]

Originally Posted By tommygun2000:

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
That "judge" is an idiot--and has spouted liberal drivel on more than on occasion. Tell that crap to the people who used to live where interstate highways now run. Theoretical and philosophical tripe is one thing, but as mentioned above, most of us are stuck living in the real world. I cringe every time his face appears on FNC.



I concur. Ever see the show "Power of Attorney?" After having been on that show, I'm surprised he has the courage to show his face on television again.

How can you conceivably reconcile the preposterously overbroad statement (as presented in the initial post) with the eminent domain ruling recently handed down by the United States Supreme Court?



Because eminent domain is the structured taking of property through hearings and compensation offered for property to be used for public use, not unlawful eviction. Theres a difference, theoretically and legally.



What does that have to do with the statement he made? Whether or not eminent domain is at issue in NO has no bearing on the inaccuracy of the quoted statement, standing alone. Clearly, eminent domain is not at issue regarding the mandatory evacuation of NO...not even close. Please don't read my post as suggesting it is. I only point out that his statement is entirely inaccurate.

I would also point out that people of Japanese descent were forcibly relocated during the pendency of WWII without any prior court hearings. How do you reconcile THAT with the judge's obviously flip and poorly thought out statement. I think that such an example dovetails nicely with the NO stated health and safety based order. How soon we forget history.

As long as I am being drawn into the substantive debate on my tangential criticism of hizzoner, I would reject the proposition that a health and safety emergency must be proven in some court through an adversarial proceeding prior to the issuance of a mandatory evacuation order. That is pure nonsense. Where is it said that hearings cannot be held subsequently? It's done all the time in replevin cases. The Sheriff seizes your property FIRST and then you get a hearing...and that's not even an emergency situation.

Back to my initial point. The judge's statement is clearly erroneous, at least so far as it's quoted. It may be taken out of context but my post clearly contemplated that possibility.

eta: for the record, here's the statement:



"there is no authority under any state or federal law that can force a property owner from their property"



Nothing in this statement says anything about eviction, lawful or otherwise. There is lots of authority for the proposition that the government, both State and Federal can force a property owner from their property, including eminent domain, which I concede is not at issue in NO. The statement is inartfully crafted at best
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:58:33 PM EDT
Shocking how so many constitutional scholars have all this free time to post on the internet.

You'd think they'd have better things to do.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:00:27 PM EDT
The way I see it, the gov may have the power to forcibly remove you from your home under "health emergency" but I'm not sure if it is legal. You could resist and probably get shot, arrested or both.

I'm not sure if there is legal authority to do this, but they do have the power and it comes from the barrel of an M4/M16 which is being carried by every cop and troop there.

People have historically lived without running water and electricity and without a job for thousands of years. However, by todays standards, a city can condem your house if you don't have running water or electricity and evict you from your home. Is it right? I think not. Can the city do this? Yes, and have many, many times. I have lived without heating and A/C in Phoenix for one year (long story, bad landlord). It was not nice, but I did it. I have also lived without running water for 10 days straight. Plumbing issues and we needed to strip a bunch of old pipe and rebuild it. It was not a big deal to me. It can be done.

If they are saying that you will get infected and die, well maybe and maybe not. You can take precautions and if it was really that deadly, we would have every person cop, soldier and relief worker down there in level 5 bio suits. I haven't seen that yet.

If they could get to an uncontaminated water source and get back home okay - let 'em. They won't hinder your rebuilding efforts. Let them stay in their homes if they want.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:01:21 PM EDT

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 7 - After days of pleading with residents to leave this partly destroyed city, local officials said today that they would begin forced evacuations of all residents, including people living in dry and undamaged homes.


Just think that's worth noting. Also, other articles have stated that many of those now facing forced evac are folks who were smart enough to get out prior to the storm, but have since returned to protect their homes from looting.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:04:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DScott:
Shocking how so many constitutional scholars have all this free time to post on the internet.

You'd think they'd have better things to do.




Like what? It doesn't take that long to read the Constitution and a few thousand pages of case law. Constitutional law is not made fresh every morning like the donuts.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:13:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By DScott:
Shocking how so many constitutional scholars have all this free time to post on the internet.

You'd think they'd have better things to do.




Like what? It doesn't take that long to read the Constitution and a few thousand pages of case law. Constitutional law is not made fresh every morning like the donuts.



Even better, why bother to do all that actual *work*? Why not just look it up on the errornet, or watch it on the Tee Vee. Don't even have to bother to dust off those critical thinking skills.

"Aw, hell YEAH! That just ain't RIGHT!"

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:16:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DScott:
Even better, why bother to do all that actual *work*? Why not just look it up on the errornet, or watch it on the Tee Vee. Don't even have to bother to dust off those critical thinking skills.

"Aw, hell YEAH! That just ain't RIGHT!"




touche!

errornet, I'll remember that one
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:17:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By MissouriBob:
Two very different things. The Constitution allows for one (Eminent Domain), but not the other. No one can legislate your Constitutional rights away. You may have to fight it or those who try to to enforce it, but they do not have RIGHT to do what they are trying to do.



I know--that's what I meant. I'm guessing the two are similar enough, regardless of original reason for doing so, to find some way to get it done.

The odd thing is, the very ones who are going to "not be dragged away" on this board likely would have had the good sense to flee the storm to begin with.



But if you knew that your house survived and was not flooded wouldn't you try to return?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 9:47:42 PM EDT
I don't want and do not expect the Gov't to protect me from me. If I choose to stay on my own property then I will accept the consequences of my decision.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:48:22 AM EDT
Someone just started a thread about the General incharge of the NG in NOLA telling the mayor to FOAD, they WOULD NOT be participating in the forced removal of people from their homes.


Dave
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 4:06:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 10:26:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 10:27:57 AM EDT by rtech]
From what I see, the Guard, Fed and State cops are not forcibly removing people from their homes. It seems to be the local type cops only. Even the temp transplant cops and deputies from other states and jurisdictions. A woman with an unloaded firearm for protection only gets swarmed, disarmed and removed from her home. Nice.

I think we are going to see the textbook case of modern removing people from homes by force, collecting up private, law abiding citizen's defensive weapons and render unto Caesar for your own good. I saw a vid clip of peaceable people being stopped and seached at gunpoint because there was a rumor of someone being armed in a group. These people were simply walking out of the area and posed no threat to anyone.

So much for the right to bear arms, travel freely, own property without gov intrusion and be secure in one's own person and effects.

Bill of Rights? Yeah, written in pencil and comes with an eraser.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top