> Of course, the terms "due process" and
> "just compensation" are open to interpretation.
Due process can be distilled into: (1) notice; and (2) opportunity to be
heard. In the first year of law school, there's six credit-hours of U.S.
Constitutional Law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that analyzes what
seem like two simple terms. One of the hardest concepts to understand
about the U.S. Constitution is that it cannot be understood by reading it
unless you research case law as to how each Article and Amendment has been
applied by the courts to historical cases.
One example is Miranda v. Arizona -- the case that established the so-called
"Miranda Rights." The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not specifically
address notice of rights to persons under governmental custodial detainment.
It took almost 180 years after the drafting of the Constitution before
someone figured out that detained persons have some semblance of rights.
But it took an interpretation of the Amendments -- not the literal word of
Just compensation to a takings under the Fifth Amendment generally address
market viability of the "takings." That's about a half semester of legal
research to understand.
> Note that none of the restrictions apply to the judiciary. The courts can
> overturn private contracts whenever they want to.
Not when they want to. Even the state and federal judiciaries must apply
the law to their actions and inactions. They cannot issue a court order on
a whim. In rare cases, it does occur -- but then the case is ripe for an
appeal. Appellate courts only look to lower courts for findings of
procedural and legal error.
By the way, when Congress gives to an independent agency of the Executive
Branch (e.g., FCC) some of its own authority, it's not a "separation of
powers" issue. Congress can give, and take back. That, they can do when
they want to, when properly ratified.
> 73, Dick WC1M
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:50 PM
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HAM GATHERING SIGNATURES ON PETITION TO VOID
>> ANTENNA PROHIBITIONS
>> No, you will find the FCC's ruling on OTARD (over the air receiving
>> device - e.g. satellite and TV antennas) applies to private contracts
>> including HOAs, rental contracts, and builder imposed deed limits.
>> The FCC - and any other *federal* authority - has the power to preempt
>> private contracts simply by declaring the terms of the contract
>> "contrary to public policy." It is the same authority used to void many
>> other "private" restrictions regarding public accommodation, housing,
>> memberships, etc.
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>> On 4/23/2012 2:30 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
>> > I think you'll find that applies to public ordinances (e.g. zoning
>> laws) , not deed covenants.
>> > Al
>> > AB2ZY
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list