Texas Federal judge rules moratorium on housing evictions is unconstitutional.

Both president Trump and then president Biden have ordered that banks and mortgage companies and landlords not evict owners and renters during the Covid crisis. Trump did it as part of his Cares package and Biden extended it to end on March 31,2021. Texas federal Judge John Campbell Barker has ruled their decision is unconstitutional. His ruling says that while individual states may have the authority to do this, the federal government does not. This will obviously open the flood gates to mass evictions of those delinquent in their mortgage or rent payments across the country. Judge Barker is an appointee of president Trump.

 

No interest in judges ruling that thousands can now legally be evicted because both presidents violated the constitution.

 

It will be appealed and go thru the system. Let's see how far this goes.

 

I don't believe you can appeal unconstitutional??

 

If the Feds are allowed to create a de facto situation where they can arbitrarily seize property or refuse the owners the use of it for their benefit, do you think that will be an overall positive for the country? Maybe instead the Feds can just PAY THE OWNERS for the fair value of their property since it's the Fed's fault that the economy has so thoroughly tanked.

 

Until SCOTUS actually says it's Unconstitutional, it can be appealed.

 

I think the Covid 19 PANDEMIC is the cause of the lost employment and owners and renters being unable to make their payments.

 

Even though I agree that preventing landlords from evicting is a good idea under the circumstances, I am not convinced that it will make much difference declaring the order to be unconstitutional. There is little advantage in the landlord evicting them unless they have someone else to rent the property. Evicting just means it sits there empty and it is generally better for the property to be occupied.

 

And where is your sympathy for the landlords who are now ALSO unable to pay those to whom THEY owe money?

 

I sympathize with them, as many are small time real estate investors who are in danger of their property being repossessed if they have fallen delinquent because tenants are not paying them.

 

I personally think it constitutes a taking and the government should have been issuing the money to the landlords and not to the tenants. It was all crap anyway. Some people had the money and just refused to pay the rent. I know a man who spent a year getting to court only to have the guy show up with a year's rent in cash. Pissed him off so bad that once that case was dismissed, the man turned around and sent him a 30 day notice to vacate so he could evict him for reasons other than non-payment of rent. Any current moratorium doesn't apply if the reason is other than rent.

 

Not really surprised. A lot of things have been ruled unconstitutional this last year.

 

I would only agree to this if the banks quit charging the property owner during the period of the moratorium. Otherwise, we are benefiting the banks over the property owners as foreclosures enrich the banks.

It's clearly unconstitutional.

 

"unconstitutional" goes to supreme court if necessary.

 

the fed's fault? i guess trump did encourage spread of the disease.

 

the landlords need protection as well. the businesses best positioned (and most highly subsidized) to absorb these losses are the banks.

 

(1) The law, properly followed, is not the doing of a sitting president or judge.

(2) To allow occupancy of rented properly without payment other than as a temporary accommodation in a crisis is the same thing as requiring you to work without pay. Are you up for that?

Working together is of course highly important in these times- but cannot be a one-sided thing.

 

Democrats, and the left in general, is very up to asking (well, requiring really) OTHERS to work without pay. Income taxes do that, insisting that society owes everyone cradle to grave health coverage does it as well, both by taxation of income and other forms, and by necessitating that at some level or another, doctors and other direct healthcare providers are effectively doing so for free, and I could probably go on and on. As a society, we really need to start getting away from our current model which outright necessitates that virtually everyone MUST work for free on a very frequent basis, I suppose with the exception of those who are the recipients of this largess.

That's what the whole concept of "tax freedom day" is, that until somewhere in the May timeframe (on average), most people get NOTHING in return for their work because it takes that long to just pay off our income tax debts. And then when you throw in forcing people to pay for other people's healthcare, or free cell phones, or internet connections, or any of dozens of other things, it's made even worse. I always wonder about how these people who are so poor that they need free internet from the government, somehow still manage to acquire the alcohol or cigarettes they need rather than paying for their own damn internet first. I have nothing against smoking or drinking if that's what you want to do, I just think people need to prioritize better. I mean, what's more important? Making sure your kids have internet so they can attend their virtual schooling, or to make sure you have enough smokes for the month? If you, as an individual, can afford both, more power to you, but don't come to me asking for MY money to pay for YOUR internet while you're still making sure you've got your smokes and booze first.

Now, it's important to note that not all forms of taxation amount to working for free. Gax taxes, for example, that are at least supposed to be used to pay for transportation infrastructure amount to a user fee (of sorts) to pay for your share of how much you do, in fact, use the roads. BUT, we need to go to a REAL user fee structure, which in the case of vehicles and road transportation costs, is a weight/mile tax that amounts to your actual share (and your share of the trucks, vans, and whatever else it takes to deliver products to your house and/or mailbox) for that road usage. The same should be true of things like subways, buses, and other forms of public transportation, all the way up to charging airlines a per passenger fee for the use of Air Traffic Control services. Sure, that last example will only amount to pennies for an average airline trip, but those pennies when multiplied by millions of passenger miles add up, and should cover 100% of the costs that it takes to provide those shared services. But ATC fees should not be used to pay for roads, and weight/mile fees should not be used to pay for ATC. They should fund 100% of what they're charging to use, but not a penny more to subsidize anything else.

Anyway, I'm on a rant, and I want to go use some virtual ATC in my virtual airplane on my flight simulator, so I'm off to fly from Spokane to Vancouver, BC. Which IRL would necessitate a trip through customs, first, but fortunately the virtual skies don't have any such thing as customs.

TTFN...

 

Expect to see even more of that now that we have a majority of Supreme Court justices who actually respect the Constitution, and think that it means what it says and it says what it means. No more of this "living document" nonsense, if something therein has become obsolete due to the passage of time, get it repealed through the Amendment process as it was designed. Until that happens, well, it says what it says, and not what some people wish it said.

 

There is no way in hell that a bunch of guys well over 200 years ago could anticipate or guess how things would develop beyond their lives. The constitution has to be considered a living document as time and innovation force changes to be made to it. That is why we have amendments.

 

Yeah, and the right is hypocritically claiming they are on the side of the little guy.

Jeez, they support only those who side with the rich and powerful, or anyone that has a hold over the little guy.

 

You can appeal any ruling by a federal court, that's what SCOTUS is therefore, but if they don't take the case, the lower court's ruling stands. With a 6/3 conservative court, it's not likely they would take the case.

 

If they were for the average worker they would be fully in favor of raising the minimum wage which they NEVER ARE !!!

 

Nope.

Pandemics don't infect businesses.

It's the shutdowns that do the financial damage.

 

Raising the minimum wage is not going to fix the problem. It's a Band-Aid solution at best. And not a very good one at that as it will force small businesses to go out of business.