View Single Post
Old July 21, 2010, 02:32 AM   #86
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Originally Posted by DG45
I hope that some super-sharp civil rights lawyer can find a way to pierce the veil of personal immunity that these elected officials in Chicago believe they are protected by, and use the opening to go after them personally.
It's getting close!

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
The latter section is the one with potential to pierce the veil of limited immunity for public officials.

Even now it would be hard, for Daley or the City to claim they were not intending to violate the people's rights the Supreme Court said they have. Not when aldermen say "It's a bad decision." or "We don't agree with the court's decision" and one woman alderman who thanked participants for "making this the most restrictive law possbile."

Obviously permit and licensing schemes cannot be implemented against a constitutional right. Could they require you to obtain a permit to worship your religion more than once a month? Or to read more than 10 pages of scriptures per day? Or make carrying a Bible/Torah/Koran/etc outside your home a crime? Could the city require you to buy a permit in order to obtain a public defender? All of these would be and are offensive to the constitution.

Other requirements of the law just stink. For instance, what about the 18-20 year old who is a hard worker, on his own and an orphan with no parents or guardians? The city will deny him his right because there is no one to sign his permission slip. The most obnoxious part of that is if the young person does have a single living parent, but that parent is disqualified because of a 23 year old conviction, the city punishes the man's heirs for crimes the father committed (even if the child lives on his own). Absurd.

The eyesight requirement slipped past me. I wonder how they'll react to a combined ADA and Civil Rights suit from someone who has a glass eye? Some of these folks cannot drive due to a lack of depth perception. Yet, their remaining eye can be 20/20. Depth perception isn't required in shooting (how many of you shoot with one eye closed at times?). Thus Chicago discriminates against those with disabilities.

Should Chicagoans start a tax revolt on their property taxes? If their property tax includes taxes on a detached 2-car garage or includes the front/rear porches and yards then they're entitled to a partial rebate on those taxes. After all, the city has said these areas are not part of the home. If the city can exclude these as part of the "home" definition, then why should people pay a full tax amount on them as developed land?

Or should it be a 5th Amendment civil rights suit for the city depriving the owners of the full use and enjoyment of their property? As one pointed out, it'd be illegal to clean your gun in the garage or on the back porch (to spare your spouse the smell of solvents). This is about like the city declaring that yards must be maintained, but not used for sporting activities, games, parties, lounging, weddings, picnics or gatherings of more than 3 people. Not only does that deprive owners of property rights, but it devalues those homes with larger yards suitable for just those activities.

Were it not for our Constitution and the Illinois state constitution, it's my belief that Mayor Daely would be exactly the kind of pompous, bullying tyrant that so angered our forefathers. I think he's dangerously close to that now.
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Page generated in 0.03783 seconds with 7 queries