Errr!? Its What!? Unconstitutional!? Excuse me!?

Published on October 19, 2005 By ----- In Politics

Errr right....

Well, as the title says... Here in the "great" state of Oregon, in Marion county, a judge ruled Measure 37 unconstitutional ( Link )

The measure says (condensed):

GOVERNMENTS MUST PAY OWNERS, OR FORGO ENFORCEMENT, WHEN CERTAIN LAND USE RESTRICTIONS REDUCE PROPERTY VALUE

( Link )

So, apparently...a measure, which Oregon voters approved by over 60%....

So, do oregon citizens not know what they want? Apparently (according to an article) the statement "It's mine and I can do whatever I want" is 'historically incorrect and economically unsupported'. (WTF!?)

So is this to say that when a US/Oregon Citizen buys land, with his money, cannot build his home...?

My main point is the fact that a judge had the gaul, to over rule something that the *citizens* voted on? It's a serious breach of trust. I think that the judge overstepped his boundary, and tossed his weight around.

Link

Link

Comments

citahellion

on Oct 19, 2005

Overruling something that the citizens voted on is no cause for alarm; citizens, surprisingly enough, often have a poor grasp on the constitutionality of certain items.

Calling this particular law unconstitutional, though, is incorrect and unsupportable, and should be appealed.

-----

on Oct 19, 2005

Overruling something that the citizens voted on is no cause for alarm; citizens, surprisingly enough, often have a poor grasp on the constitutionality of certain items

But, then whats to say that a extreme liberal, or extreme conservative enters the judicial system, and proceeds to rule things unconstitutional because it is not according to their agenda/belief?

Calling this particular law unconstitutional, though, is incorrect and unsupportable, and should be appealed.

I agree

Furry Canary

on Oct 20, 2005

'My main point is the fact that a judge had the gaul ...'
What have you got against the French?

Dr Guy

on Oct 20, 2005

Calling this particular law unconstitutional, though, is incorrect and unsupportable, and should be appealed.

One would have to see what they constitution of Oregon says. The Judge was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law as it pertains to the US one.

Dr Guy

on Oct 20, 2005

What have you got against the French?

Furry, now I am mad! You are 2 timing me!

-----

on Oct 21, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, October 20, 2005What have you got against the French? Furry, now I am mad! You are 2 timing me!

Oui toi

What have you got against the French?

Err, can i *really* say it here?

Moderateman

on Oct 21, 2005

another case of an activist judge overturning the will of the people.

bah!!!

-----

on Oct 21, 2005

another case of an activist judge overturning the will of the people.

Exactly my point...

citahellion

on Oct 21, 2005

Having reviewed the Oregonian constitution, and admittedly not being a lawyer at all, I'd say the relevant section is this one:

Section 18. Private property or services taken for public use. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation; nor except in the case of the state, without such compensation first assessed and tendered; provided, that the use of all roads, ways and waterways necessary to promote the transportation of the raw products of mine or farm or forest or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state and is declared a public use. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 17, 1919, and adopted by the people May 21, 1920; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 8, 1923, and adopted by the people Nov. 4, 1924]

How the judge can get from that section that it's unconstitutional to require the state to compensate individuals for the restrictions the state places on their land use, I don't know. To me it looks pretty plain that it supports it.

The section is written much more as an "all-or-nothing" kind of thing, not envisioning the idea that the state might say "you bought it outright, but now we've decided that we won't let you use it for purpose X." That seems to me like the state is taking some functionality out of the land for "public use". For example, they might say "You can't build a house on your land because we're protecting the snowy owl habitat there." The state has effectively just declared "snowy owl habitat" as a public use of that land, even though the land overall still belongs to you.

The only restriction removed for the state is the requirement that they have to pay up front. The section clearly allows the state to take first and pay later for public-use requirements. And according to the text of Measure 37, the state is given 180 days after the presentment of a demand for compensation to either pay up or declare an exemption.

-----

on Oct 28, 2005

Reply By: citahellion

--Hmmm, thanks for the find...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!