Nice try
You, like me, have probably wondered where the legions of nut-bag constitutionalists in Utah County come from. You know, the squirrely folks who make Rep. Chris Cannon and Vlad the Impaler look like liberal elitists?Meet DonCarlos Wells of Provo. DonCarlos (who some suspect is Zorro's alter ego) went to court to fight a parking ticket because it violated his First Amendment right to "peaceably to assemble."
It has limited and undermined my ability to go about my daily lawful activities, be they social or business-related, by forcing me to seek the city's permission to do so beforehand.Hell yeah, DonCarlos!
But Provo City Justice Court Judge and closet socialist Vernon Romney argued:
There's nothing to prevent you from riding the bus, walking — getting dropped off by a friend.Then The Man, city prosecutor Steve Shriner sneered that parking is not a human right:
You don't have a constitutional right to own a car. You don't have a constitutional right to park that car.DonCarlos is considering whether to appeal the $10 attack on the rights of man and woman:
At least I didn't bend over like most people do.
9 Comments:
Isn't it a right to own property and a car is property
There is not a Constitutional right to property.
What you have generally is a right to the "quiet enjoyment of property". He would have to prove that the City of Provo somehow violated his right to enjoy his proeprty (his aforementioned car), but it is not an enumerated Constitutional right that I am aware of. He makes an interesting argument, but unfortunately I don't believe the law is on his side.
Property rights are very different from Constitutional rights. To confuse the two is understandable, but they are very, very, different.
To Anon #2--
What are you smoking. Without regard to this story and it's merits or lack thereof there is absolutely a constitutional right to property.
It's found in the 5th amendment, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Don't forget the 14th amendment, "..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The constitutional right to property was very critical to the Founder's of the Constitution.
You can own and do whatever you want with your property generally. However, as soon as this schmuck decided to drive his property (car) out on the city's and state's property (roads) he subjected himself to all sorts of regulations, i.e. driver's license, insurance, vehicle registration, emission controls, etc. So just as he can do whatever he wants to with his property, so too can the city determine when and where parking is appropriate. The judge and the city attorney were 100% correct that no constitutional right had been violated.
agreed. There is a constitutional right to privacy in that you have the right to own it. But the gov can restrict your use of that property, especially on gov land.
Property rights are considered to be a bundle or rights, much like a bundle of sticks.
The 14th Amendment is a due process amendment.
The Fifth Amendment rdoes not guarantee property rights.
Why am I wasting my breath on non-lawyers?
I am so sick of lay people in Utah who have read the constitution once and think they are scholars?
I have lectyred on the constitution and property rights, I am not going to sit here and take a lesson from the uneducated.
This guy in Provo is wrong.
To anon attorney:
How consecending and smug much like many other attorneys I have dealt with.
I know the inferior class can't read the Constitution and understand it like the elite legal society but despite your "lectures" on the subject I am going to stand solid on the 5th amendment.
Any reading of the Founder's thoughts show how strong they valued property rights. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a direct descendent of the "law of the land" provision of the Magna Carta, and is perhaps the most important protection not only of property rights but of individual liberties to be found in the Constitution.
Just because law school teachers define property rights as a bundle of rights doesn't make it less of a right. I would argue that property rights are so fundamental to the Constitution that it's enmeshed in almost everything they wrote.
PS--Learn to spell Mr. Educated Attorney.
You have a constitutional right to own property, but there are no constitutional rights to the use of cars. Parking is inherently a restricted right. Hundreds of public streets ban parking universally or for given times. You are not allowed to permanently park your car in a street, and the list goes on.
Provo has the right to regulate the use of the street. As long as they do it based on factors that do not discriminate on forbidden identities it is acceptable.
I also think his whole line about snow is total rubbish. There is never significant amounts of snow in Provo. However since there is a bus that goes right through that neighborhood, that is a legitimate option.
He could also ride a bike. I think this option was overlooked by Judge Romney.
Post a Comment
<< Home