![]() ![]() In 2002’s Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. Epstein.Īnd how about 700 owners-many of them couples nearing retirement-who bought wooded lots above Lake Tahoe and later complained their property had been taken without compensation? They planned to build homes, but the planning commission declared a moratorium on building over fears the lake was being damaged by runoff. “Why the Supreme Court should yield to the use of arbitrary police power that takes the property of innocent persons without a hearing is a mystery,” wrote University of Chicago law professor Richard A. She lost in a 5-4 decision in which the court essentially concluded that the car was properly seized because it had been utilized in wrongdoing. As an innocent owner whose property had been taken, she challenged the forfeiture as unconstitutional. Michigan in which Tina Bennis had the double misfortune of losing her Pontiac after her husband was arrested in it accompanied by a Detroit prostitute. “In the aftermath of Raich, it is difficult to know what congressional action, if any, could ever exceed the scope of the interstate commerce clause,” Levy and Mellor write. Filburn, the 1942 New Deal-era ruling that upheld a $117 fine levied on Roscoe Filburn for growing too much wheat for use on his farm and for his family. Nonetheless, the 6-3 majority agreed their use of marijuana at home could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. State law permitted patients to use marijuana with the recommendation of a physician, and the women had neither bought nor sold the marijuana. Raich, which upheld the power of federal agents to seize homegrown marijuana from two California women who used it as medicine to relieve pain. In 2005, the court pushed the outer limits of the commerce clause in Gonzales v. Levy and Mellor are more likely to provoke debate over the recent rulings they cite. It was not a total obliteration, and this issue could return someday soon, as the government struggles to cope with the current foreclosure crisis. The result was “a near obliteration of the contracts clause,” they say. Blaisdell, which upheld a state moratorium on home foreclosures. ![]() They describe as “appalling” 1934’s Home Building & Loan Association v. ![]() They complain the court erred when it gave Congress the power to collect and spend tax money for old-age pensions. Davis, the 1937 decision that upheld the Social Security system. The list is long on depression-era rulings that gave the government more power to regulate the economy. The pair surveyed 74 “like-minded legal scholars” who agree the court has all but abdicated its duty to protect “economic liberties” and “property rights.” REACHING BACK TO DISTANT PAST Levy of the Cato Institute and William Mellor of the Institute of Justice. It was written by two prominent libertarians, Robert A. The debate was prompted by the publication last year of the book The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. Conservatives, meanwhile, point to the abortion rulings and those that widened the church-state separation. Gore, as well as decisions viewed as setbacks to civil rights. There the court upheld the detention of more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans.Īfter that, it depends on which side of the political aisle the experts occupy. United States (1944) is usually cited as well. Ferguson in 1896, which condoned segregation as “separate but equal.” Sandford, the 1857 ruling that upheld slavery even in the free states, and Plessy v. ![]() Supreme Court? Historians and court scholars agree on a pair of 19th century opinions: Dred Scott v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |