Posted on 04/28/2024 10:32:19 AM PDT by libstripper
Woody Guthrie (yeah, a commie symp) wrote a tune called “Do Re Mi”. About the Dust Bowl days.
California had State Troopers on the roads at ports of entry. They would not allow people to enter the state without visible means of support. As in “Believe it t or not, you won’t find it so hot, if you ain’t a got the Do Re Mi” Cash. It was a substantial amount.
From the state of California’s perspective, unemployment was 25%, not counting ranchers or farmers. There were no jobs for them, and no way to feed them. No housing for them.
And no “Welfare” as it is understood today. Nothing. So turning away hordes of impoverished - without the means to help them, what is the immediate short term answer?
Congrats on your sensible consideration.
Every single one of them are different stories. Some are simply addicted and need to be institutionalized. But the later 1 third are as we indicated. They can not afford rents, or lost their domicile because of one spouse passing away, or medical..or whatever.
The solution is localities getting together and through volunteers, setting aside a piece of vacant property and setting up places, or constructing housing for these people to go to.
Not throwing them in jail and issuing fines for...BEING DESTITUTE.
You agree, we got enough money to GIVE for endless wars and ILLEGALS infiltrating this nation, but very little compared to get these people back into society. Most of these people indicate they can afford to pay rent at a lower price.
The one constant is...DO NOT, give them money. The addictive people will use that money for you know what.
It is a local issue as I said. And it require volunteers to administer the solution.
At a prior thread I explained that we look after a disabled man who served this country in the NG and can not access VA benefits because, like my wife they served at the time of no conflict, and served a short time. So there is just one example of veterans who may not get access to benefits, even if they’d be lessor.
This is a national disgrace!
80+% of what the federal government does including meddling with (and trying to take over) healthcare, is NOT authorized by the Constitution and is, therefore, utterly unconstitutional and illegal.
AMWERICA, WAKE UP!!!
Freedom has its price which is why freedom requires FAITH. God, not man, will supply and see them and us through.
Man’s “solutions” with his oppressive government is NEVER the answer.
OK, Jim. Good sermon this Sunday!
Now about those homeless hordes on the border, with no money or job prospects ….
Oh please, give me a break. We didn’t have that big of a homeless problem when we kept drug addicts in jail and mentally ill people in hospitals. We could drop the price of housing by deporting about 10 million illegals. There are a lot of homeless who can not get a place to live because they spent their rent money on drugs and no one will rent to them. Even their own families and friends will not take them in. You know why? Because they steal from them too. It used to be considered shameful to beg but now they have made the bums into victims. There is a lot of people making a killing off the homeless. California doesn’t even know where the billions spent on them went.
Bumming\begging is now an organized business. I’ve seen vans drop beggars off at busy intersections. Someone or some organization is playing corporate Fagin (See Oliver Twist!) to these people!
Interesting article:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/02/living-in-shelters.html
From the article:
“Also important to note: nearly one quarter of people experiencing homelessness and living in shelters were not in poverty.”
The report doesn’t mention the number of unsheltered 65+ people, but people aged 65+ account for 8% of sheltered people.
You must separate between personal interest and valid government interest. The federal government is legally bound by the Constitution, the ONLY legal source of its authority and action.
Nations are sovereign and must not meddle with each other unless there is imminent danger one to another.
If you want to personally see about helping these people fine. But the federal government is bound by the Constitution to “protect every state” from invasion (Art. IV, Sec. 4) and illegal immigration is invasion.
give all the homeless a map to these judges front lawns and then we will talk about “victimless”
Right. The Federal government is not a Unitary government.
You seem to dance around this question.
What do you think of State Patrol at ports of entry, keeping hordes of unemployed vagrants out? Is that “legal” or “constitutional”?
The decision will not be based on the right to camp, as there is no such right. It will be based on whether being homeless is a status and whether the ordinance forbidding sleeping outdoors in a public space criminalizes that status and is therefore a violation of the 8th amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.
That it is even being considered under that amendment is thanks to the Warren court which gave us a decision referred to as Robinson which decided being a drug addict was a status and unlike the conduct of possessing, using, or dealing drugs could not be regarded as a criminal act. Which meant it was cruel and unusual to treat addiction as a crime. THANKS EARL WARREN! Sarc.
Does anyone think that if SCOTUS rules against the right to “camp” that states won’t use it to go against everyone EXCEPT the homeless drug addicts in city parks and on sidewalks?
They will deem someone living in a mobile home on their own 50 acres as “camping”. They will go after people camping in wilderness area. Liberals will be creative to use the laws to criminalize lake side overnight camping for fishing. They will find any reason to go after conservatives. They use any laws against everyone except those causing problems.
"Homelessness is simply NOT a federal government issue. The Constitution gives the feds NO authority or power over homelessness. It is a local/states’ issue. SCOTUS would get it right by remanding it to the state(s) where the issue belongs."
I agree 100%.
First, the bottom line.
The broader picture about homeless is his. The corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties are working to establish a permanent puppet presidency that will unquestioningly sign unconstitutional taxing and spending bills into law.
But more specifically concerning how unconstitutional, unaccountable federal government taxes are huring the homeless, consider this. As a consequence of corrupt Congress's abuse of its repealable 16th Amendment powers (direct taxes), Congress is effectively stealing state revenues, including citizen's wallets, by means of taxes that the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and a few other constitutionally enumerated expenses.
In other words, there is a bunch of "federal" taxes, actually state revenues imo, that should never have left the states, revenues that the states could be using to take care of the homeless and many other things.
Note that Justice Joseph Story had explained that "poor laws" are a state power issue.
"The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states [emphasis added]." —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
From the congressional record, a clarification about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers by Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
Federal government welfare is unconstitutional imo, just a way for corrupt politicians to buy votes.
The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government oppressing everybody under its boots...
Democratic and Republican Trump supporters not only need to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new patriot Congress so that Trump will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but the new Congress has to support Trump to do the following concerning unconstitutional federal taxes.
Trump needs to lead the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes by effectively "seceding" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments (16&17A).
Consider the repealing of 16&17A as part of reparations for victim taxpayers of the corrupt federal government for having to pay a lifetime of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and a few other constitutionally enumerated expenses.
Again, the broader picture is that corrupt political party and media fuss about "obsolete" electoral college is because the electoral college is the only thing stopping the corrupt political parties that have pirated control of state and federal governments from establishing a permanent puppet presidency that will unquestioningly sign unconstitutional taxing and spending bills into law.
"16th Amendment : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
(Again) From the congressional record:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
Imagine explaining to Jefferson, Adams or Madison that DC would be expected to approve of calibers, features, and design aspects of firearms and impose those on the states.
They would have regarded you as a dangerous lunatic as bad as the King.
The usual response from an ignorant ill informed screemer who feels all safe and secure behind his PC.
You’ve no idea, so your ignorance means nothing.
You misspelled “crap” as “camp”.
A general Constitutional right to build a house in the middle of a public sidewalk and live there indefinitely? The very idea is laughable.
More 9th Circuit lunacy that SCOTUS should reject 9-0.
Again, it is absolutely the federal government’s job to PREVENT INVASION INTO THE STATES (US Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4).
Of course constitutional state sovereignty allows the state to protect its own borders but otherwise preventing invasion is a constitutional mandate of the feds.
YOU seem to be the one dancing around this issue. It is straightforward but if you are a Leftist, then, you may very well try to confuse the issue as you have here. The article is about homelessness and you have moved this conversation to illegal immigration which is invasion.
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.