Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: SCOTUS- Property Rights case

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,810

    Default SCOTUS- Property Rights case

    Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

    SCOTUS To Decide Whether There Is A Fundamental Right To Kick People Off Your Property

    Elura Nanos 4 hrs ago

    Issue: Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
    quote:
    California law requires agricultural businesses to allow labor organizers onto their property three times a day for 120 days each year. The state contends that the regulation is necessary in the specific context of farming: farmworkers tend to be inaccessible to union organizers through other channels, and farm properties lack parking lots or public areas that other workers typically use for gathering. From California’s brief:

    [Farmworkers] are highly migratory, moving to follow the harvest every few weeks or months; they often live in temporary housing, sometimes on their employer’s property; they frequently lack access to modern telecommunications technology; many speak only indigenous languages; and many are illiterate even in their native language. The Board’s regulation authorizes a limited number of organizers to access the property of agricultural employers, for brief periods, during non-work hours, solely for the purpose of discussing organizing with employees, and only after notifying the Board and the employer.

    Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company sued to have the law invalidated, and their argument is based on land use. They say that the law allowing union organizers to meet with workers on their property is an easement that amounts to a per se “taking” — something that would require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

    The after-hours union meetings don’t disrupt the employers’ businesses, and the state of California isn’t actually taking the property — so to make a Fifth-Amendment argument, the plaintiffs needed to frame their loss as interference with a guarantee that is Constitutionally protected. They chose the “right to exclude unwanted persons.” In other words, the California unionizing regulation deprives the owners of their inherent property right to kick people off their land.

    A panel of the Ninth Circuit sided with California, as did the district court. The panel said that because the regulation did not amount to a physical taking because it did not “allow random members of the public to unpredictably traverse their property 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.” The panel also ruled that the statute wasn’t a regulatory taking because the only property right affected was the right to exclude — and that’s simply not enough.

    Now, SCOTUS will decide whether the Fifth Amendment protects a right to exclude on par with other inherent property rights. If the justices side with the landowners and agree that the regulation amounts to a taking, it would mean the regulation cannot continue to operate without California paying compensation for its “taking” of the land. That’s novel in itself, but there’s far more drama to be had outside the arena of farming and unionizing.

    The fruit-producer plaintiffs argue that the right to exclude should take its rightful place among the most sacred of protected interests: fundamental rights.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sc...cid=entnewsntp

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,652

    Default

    As long as we allow property taxes after the initial purchase we don't own anything.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,810

    Default


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Summerville
    Posts
    14,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    As long as we allow property taxes after the initial purchase we don't own anything.
    Cyber fist bump ��

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    FROG LEVEL
    Posts
    23,785

    Default

    What Glenn said
    Gettin old is for pussies! AND MY NEW TRUE people say like Capt. Tom >>>>>>>>>/
    "Wow, often imitated but never duplicated. No one can do it like the master. My hat is off to you DRDUCK!"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Kickass
    Posts
    50,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    As long as we allow property taxes after the initial purchase we don't own anything.
    That.

    And yes, we allow it.
    "Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass by without consideration" -Izaak Walton

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,889

    Default

    ummm. ok. so before I jump on the Glenn Train, we are now against property taxes bc they, in part, allow for state or federal government's ownership of said property?
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    ummm. ok. so before I jump on the Glenn Train, we are now against property taxes bc they, in part, allow for state or federal government's ownership of said property?
    I can't speak for the rest of them, but I've been against property taxes since my mind was capable of understanding what it means.

    And yes, what Glenn says is true. If you don't believe it, stop paying your taxes and see how fast "YOUR LAND" is seized.
    "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." John 15:12

    "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Bowman
    Posts
    6,421

    Default

    You are just a renter... This whole case blows my mind. The farmers should just go post up in the union fella's living room.
    cut\'em

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    ummm. ok. so before I jump on the Glenn Train, we are now against property taxes bc they, in part, allow for state or federal government's ownership of said property?
    Don't pay it and see who owns it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Parole
    Posts
    5,092

    Default

    Wanna bet if you stop paying and don't leave when they tell you..... a man with a gun will show up. Land of the free

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Kickass
    Posts
    50,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SCDAWG View Post
    Wanna bet if you stop paying and don't leave when they tell you..... a man with a gun will show up. Land of the free
    And put you in a cage.
    "Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass by without consideration" -Izaak Walton

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Parole
    Posts
    5,092

    Default

    "kennel up"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    charleston
    Posts
    8,600

    Default

    It appears the court is going to support the farmers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •