A federal judge ruled Friday that the Biden administration could continue to enforce its new eviction moratorium, but cast doubt on its legality.
While one obscure tweet from a lone progressive Twitter profile normally wouldn’t warrant attention, in this case the tweet was “liked” by a Vermont state representative.
Governor Phil Scott returned without signature and vetoed S.79, passed on June 24 during the legislative veto session, and sent the following letter to the General Assembly.
Nine proposed constitutional amendments, some of them far reaching, have been introduced in the Vermont Senate. One in particular stands out as a mortal threat to fundamental Vermont principles. That is Proposal 9.
Equal parts concern and support were on display Thursday at a special meeting of the Select Board, as board members heard feedback on a proposed junk ordinance regulating salvage yards, waste disposal and junk and junk vehicles.
The Knick ruling is a benefit of having a Supreme Court majority that interprets the Constitution as it was and is written, rejects the government’s excuses for violating it, and is willing to overturn damage done to citizens’ rights in the past.
“There’s an argument to say if it’s your property, it’s your business,” said Bob Jarvis, a member of the board. “We need to be very mindful of that.”
This week on PEGTV’s “Straight Talk” hosted by Don Chioffi, conservative radio talk show host Hal Shurtleff said Vermont’s property rights are under attack by local planning commissions.
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Fish and Wildlife Service was wrong to designate a 1,500 acre tract of land in Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog.
Among the cases to be heard before the Supreme Court his year is Edward Poitevant’s appeal to get out from the shackles of the Endangered Species Act.
Does private property have to be “habitable” by a species in order for bureaucrats to claim it is that species’ “critical habitat”? In an extreme example of government run amok, a group of environmentalists and federal bureaucrats says “no.”
This broad, bipartisan support for reining in civil forfeiture is reflected in the population at large. One recent poll found that 84 percent of Americans oppose forfeiture of property without a criminal conviction.