Floating home is NOT a boat,sez US Suprimes

You and I agree I think. We just view some of the items in the case with different priorities.

I do not like either side of this ..... On one side, the City cannot divest public land. On the other side, the City used armed force without regard to the Constitutional protections promised citizens.

I am more concerned with their misuse of Constitutional authority. The Justices should have impeached everyone involved for their abuses, btw.

But, I am also concerned with not being able to divest public land - grabbing the other 2200 homes was not a public divestment of land ....

So, I did not see a good public outcome to this no matter who won ....

But, at the end of the day, I go back to armed federal agents are not allowed to invade homes without a true judicial writ.

And that goes to impeaching everyone concerned. The lawyers, the judge, and the federal agents all of whom have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution ....

We live in trying times to say the least .....

 

Getting back to boating and law for house boats I designed the Myark folding trailer barges to beat all the laws so house boating can be legal on most lakes harbors and rivers because they can legally be towed by the average vehicle and stored on land when not in use in limited space because of the folding system.

 

True.

I am just a little bothered by the movable part.

They had no right, Constitutional, legal, or moral for invading and attacking him. Home or not.

But, I just get a little bothered by his moving his boat there, but not being willing to move his boat from there.

At what point does his boat entail more rights than a motor home or tent trailer? Regardless of his deciding to not place a motor on it, in hurricane alley, I consider a boat mobile.

That is where I disagree with him.

BUT, he did have legal right to do so.

And from that point on, the GOVERNMENT WAS in the WRONG. Up until the Supreme Court. And their wording leaves some room to be desired. But, at least they finally set things almost right.

Such is life.

 

But I'm an elected union official, and I invite you to send me a PM explaining why on God's Green Earth I would try to destroy the company that I and my entire local depend on for a living.

Twinkies , GM, and where the 30 news papers NYC had in the 30's 40's and 50's , long destroyed by the typesetters should answer your question.
Yes I have been paid to be shot at , but I never considered the job to entitle me to a lifetime in the hammock.
The local Voulinteer firemen seem to do fine with out a lifetime at the public teat.

 

Greetings,

"Floating boat is not a home", earlier in the month somewhere in Florida, they where trying to regulate someone on a boat who was fighting against the claim "floating home is a boat".

Officials were trying to kick him out eventhough the "home" had no means of propulsion or any other typical boat attributes. Codes and regulations are all arbitrary and depend on how the magistrate feels that day and on what side his bread is buttered.

In reality most people have no idea of what law is. Its all done through words and definitions but, current education only slightly brushes the edges of a document called The Constitution, they never teach principles of law, maxims, or procedure (don't want to start another controversy but in truth the constitution doesnt even apply anymore) and thats all 99% ever get, a brief description, then pass on to another subject, this makes it easy for the other 1% to rule over you. When its time to "goto court" the 99% have no idea whats being done or said and usually pay a steep price for the ignorance.

If you are going to get an "education", law is the most necessary of all disciplines to learn, its the difference between living at liberty or as a slave.

 

I think the thing some of you are missing is that the actions of the city have been regarded as retaliatory. Lozman was singled out for special treatment by city management. Otherwise, it is much as El Guero pointed out. The situation is similar to a guest at an RV park (no lease, like staying in a hotel), or depending on the terms of the lease if one was signed. The Marina could have changed its leasing policy and put that in effect when Lozman's lease expired; but its policies would have to be applied to everyone.

America needs more Lozmans. They are becoming rather thin on the ground nowadays. The "special" protections he has received, if any, are because he was a victim of hate.

Rather amazing to me that the developer seems to have avoided getting any stink on him.

 

That wasn't a PM. And you couldn't have chosen worse examples to support your case, which indicates you really aren't all that well-informed on the subject.

I am.

I repeat: let's take this discussion private, if you'd like to have one. Or start a new thread... this isn't the place for it.

 

Interesting; I just got hit with negative rep for this post, with the following explanation: "guns and unions have nothing to do with boats." Unsigned, of course... no surprise there.

I'm curious, Fred: did he also ding you, for the anti-union post I was responding to?

 

When I ding you, I sign it. You know I don't like unions, so I won't cast any pearls here at this time.

My opinion: All rep pos or neg should be signed.

 

Guns on boats helped create and now protect the Union.

 

A forced union is no union at all.

 

I was referring to The United States, but if any state wants to secede from the Union it has the right to do so, or did at one time and if it doesn't now, it should.

 

If you'd dinged me, Hoyt, I'd have felt it. This guy was like getting hit with a worn-out BB gun....

I try to sign all my negative rep, as a matter of principle. And I sign about half my positive rep.

 

That question was pretty decisively settled by the Civil War.

Interestingly enough, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution were weaker in almost every respect when it came to establishing a federal government... But they were formally known as 'The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.'

The preamble also specifically stated that the goal of the Articles was a perpetual union. So there's no doubt at all the people who originally fought to create this nation believed that joining was a one-way trip....

Most of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had also been involved in drafting, promulgating and ratifying the original Articles of Confederation. It's my firm opinion that the only reason they didn't specifically mention the Union as perpetual was because they took it for granted; everyone already knew it.

 

The Articles of Confederation are the united states of America. Those are its incorporation papers.

Article I
The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The united states of America."

First time ever the word "united states of America" is used. These were the words the seperate states used to identify the thing they were creating. The vessel created is under the law of the one who created it.

Article II
Each state retains its sovereignty,...

Article III
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship...

Notice that severally means independent from the whole.

Article IV
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship...

Note the word "perpetuate" when thinking about "perpetual" Union.
Perpetual was used to describe kindliness, friendship, and fredom and gave no rights to lincoln to murderously attack the states.

The perpetual Union is limited to duties and obligations set in the Articles, basically mutual aid, freedom of commerce and dealing with others outside of the Union. The states to this day are soveriegn nations. The one that creates is master of the creation- maxim of law - you can argue that all you want but have no standing without accepting these principles.

What Lincoln did was create a Frankenstien and even with the revised numbers of 800,000 men dead due to his unlawful acts, its only a matter of time before the states regain thier rightful standing.