Posted on 05/24/2006 8:54:29 AM PDT by tbird5
A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family.
The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.
Local officials told the couple that the fact they were not married and had three children, one from Shelltrack's previous relationship, did not fit the town's definition of "family".
A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".
The couple were then left with the option of getting married, packing their bags and leaving town, or putting up a fight, which is what they decided to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Like I said, the town should just shun them, that usually works. I would just ignore the couple as much as possible.
My 2 cents
The man woman and the kids are related to each other ...aren't they....Let me explain like this...
Take any one kid...Is he/She related to the man through blood ..yes?? Take the same kid again...Is he/she related to the woman through blood relation ...yes ??
Problem solved...???
I'm all for a good old-fashioned shunning. I shunned my neighbor's dogs, but they didn't 'get the hint' if you know what I mean. I'm shunning an annoying co-worker as I write this.
LOL! Well, it may not work on animals as good, but keep trying, dogs usually get the picture. As for the annoying co-worker, ugh....we all have that and I just try to ignore them.
"Well, what I meant was, say this couple met only after one of them had already purchased the house."
And my point was that so long as the number is "two", the law doesn't apply. People can shack up in this town. So can gays. The law doesn't apply to TWO people in a house.
It applies only to THREE OR MORE people in a house.
In other words, the town's law is fine with gay couples and fornicating homosexuals, but will expel any unmarried couple with a CHILD, because that raises the number to THREE.
I take back what I said before to a poster up thread. I said the law was rational (because it was aimed at morality) but invidious. Actually, now that I think about it again, and realize that the law does NOT apply to gay or fornicating heterosexual COUPLES, but DOES apply to unmarried couples with one or more children, it really is irrational.
What is the rational basis? That GAY couples cavorting about, or heterosexual fornicators shacked up are alright, but that the CHILDREN of cohabiting unmarried heterosexuals are THE problem which suddenly makes the thing such a moral horror that the town needs to expel them through subterfuge?
What kind of a load of crap is that?
It is irrational.
"Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving"
Snort, giggle, guffaw . . . .
Thanks for your effort to keep a civil tone. I saw that someone actually criticized you for it earlier. Well, I appreciate it.
I think that there are some interesting legal questions here. But in following this discussion today, I have seen an amazing number of comments that show an almost rabid adherence to a particular principle or view, where I can't end up giving much credit to those commenting. I feel pretty strongly myself about certain aspects of the discussion. However, I really appreciate the folks who are striving to sound rational and avoiding wild accusations and profanity.
I can’t help wishing more people would remember that it is not always "liberal thinking" when some other freeper disagrees with them (or sees some other aspect of the article as more important than the aspect that they are most interested in). I see the property rights as an important issue. I also see the moral issue as important. Since I did not automatically decide that one issue trumped the other, then the majority of the discussion seemed worthwhile to me, with a lot to think about it in it. But truthfully, quite a few posters have negated their own influence by making themselves seem irrelevant or unintelligent or wildly belligerent.
"Like I said, the town should just shun them, that usually works. I would just ignore the couple as much as possible."
What about the three kids.
Shun them too?
I suppose that you don't like to hear that not wearing a burka or at least covering your head in public is sinful.
I suppose, though, hearing it from a new majority someday that disagrees with you will make you change your ways, like you advocate. or, at least move.
On the breast of her gown, in fine red cloth, surrounded with an elaborate embroidery and fantastic flourishes of gold thread, appeared the letter A. -- Nathaniel Hawthorne
So, I would suggest "s" for the kids.
So, I would say that the people of towns and cities and counties have the right to set their ordinances and rules only as far as the people of the state at large decide they can, and the people of the state at large have the absolute and unquestionable right under the US Constitution dating back to founding to override absolutely ANYTHING or EVERYTHING that a dependent municipality does.
Some powers are prohibited to States by the US Constitution [see the 10th] -- They are reserved to the people.
Nothing in the US Constitution gives States the power to "override absolutely ANYTHING or EVERYTHING that a dependent municipality does." --
Such a power would violate the peoples individual rights on a massive scale.
State authority to organize their internal polities is completely unrestricted by the federal constitution. The only requirement is that states have "a republican form of government",
And a State attempting to prohibit local county & municipal government would not be Republican in form.
and that court proceedings respect the various procedural safeguards. The Constitution doesn't create the states,
It 'created' all but the original 13. Where are you getting this stuff?
and does not tell the states how they must govern their interior spaces.
State constitutions are approved by Congress before Statehood, and are subject to the US Constitution, "-- anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwthstanding. --" [Art VI]
There is no FEDERAL power to compel the states to subdivide into polities.
There is no State power to prevent the people in a republic from subdividing into polities.
It is true that STATE Constitutions do indeed contain all sorts of subdivisions and municipal governance rules. But these matters of the state constitution can be swept away at the level of the state, by amending the state constitution,
Amendments to State Constitutions that violate the peoples individual rights to life liberty or property without due process of law are unconstitutional. [see the 14th]
and there is no appeal above the state to FEDERAL law by a municipality against the sovereign acts of a state reorienting its constitution.
Bull. The people of a municipality can appeal to the SCOTUS for redress. [see the 1st]
Municipalities exist only at the suffrance of the state.
More apt, -- State governments exist only at the sufferance of the people.
Please, this is an honest question, -- where are you being taught these odd 'States powers' theories?
"Please, this is an honest question, -- where are you being taught these odd 'States powers' theories?"
Where are you being taught your theories?
"So, I would suggest "s" for the kids."
You really believe that illegitimate children should be singled out and ostracized by society?
Ok, then if they legalize slavery, it's okay because you don't have to live there. Right?
Yes, they should be shunned like a Carrot Top movie...isolated like the fat free cookies at a school bake sale. Ostracized like the tofu salesman in Texas...
Example: several years back, the state of Connecticut simply abolished the counties. Connecticut's counties had existed since the 1600s, but Hartford eliminated their political existence in one swoop. County sherriffs, county clerks, county courthouses, all elected and appointed positions vanished. All functions that used to be performed by the counties were devolved to Connecticut's 167 towns and cities. The counties still appear on the map, but they are merely ornamental. The sole purpose the old county lines serve is to delineate state judicial districts.
Just like that, Connecticut eliminated a whole cadre of 300-year old governments. Municipalities are dependent on the state for their legal existence. The state can change the rules at will, subject only to the political will of the people of the state. There was no basis in Federal Constitutional law to even make an appeal to any federal court on these matters. The states are sovereign as to their internal organization.
As to requiring specific internal organization of some sort as a requirement of a "republican form of government", that is not so. In truth, the "republican form of government" clause has not been litigated, so what it really means is vague. Probably it means that a state has to have at least one popularly elected representative legislative body.
"Yes, they should be shunned like a Carrot Top movie...isolated like the fat free cookies at a school bake sale. Ostracized like the tofu salesman in Texas..."
Really.
What is your religious denomination?
Where are you being taught your theories?
Can't answer aye?
I'm reading [and quoting] our Constitution. -- How bout you - can you answer those questions about State powers?
It was a joke...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.