Poll: Read Article First

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by The ClayTaurus, May 24, 2006.

?

What do you think about the situation?

  1. It's a bullshit law and the town has no legal ground to enforce it

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
  2. It's a bullshit law, but it's the town's prerogative to have it. You don't like it, move.

    6 vote(s)
    66.7%
  3. It's a good law and good for the town for enforcing it.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. It's a good idea, but the town doesn't have any legal ground to enforce it.

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Stupid law, but federalism dictates that, unless the federal or state constitution bars the local government from legislating in that area, they are free to do so.
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,207
    I think it might be challengeable under the equal protection clause.
     
  4. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,228
    I think it's bullshit no matter how you look at it. Sounds like something out of the 1700's.
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    No matter what you think of the law, the city is well within its rights. There's probably a good reason for the ordinance regulating house occupancy and it may or may not have been designed to put down unmarried couples. What is fact is that, in this town, you have to be a related, legal family to live more than three to a house. These two, knowing the law, have decided not to get married, despite the risk that poses to their three children, and are now asking that a town not enforce one of its laws simply because they want to enjoy all the privileges of marriage (like raising children) without actually signing on to a committment. I think it's pretty selfish of them.

    Now, maybe the law is stupid, but if that's the case, there's no reason to try to overturn it with yet another BS judicial fiat. Instead, they should move just outside the city limits and lobby to have the city council overturn the law. If they don't, and if the people don't speak out to make them, it's their problem.

    On a side note, I think its the height of selfishness and self-indulgence to try to raise three children without the stabilizing force of a marriage to hold the family together.
     

Share This Page