Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
US Politics 2w
Who will win
#poll
Muslim guy
5th amendment
54 votes
US Politics icon
US Politics 2w
Fuck yes I love living in Mamdanistan
409 upvotes, 16 comments. Sidechat image post by Anonymous in US Politics. "Fuck yes I love living in Mamdanistan"
comment

16
upvote -2 downvote
🫕
Anonymous 2w

First, it’s the 4th Amendment that protects from unlawful seizures of property, not the 5th. Second, seizing a property because the owner has failed to maintain it and keep it up to code would not be unlawful, as they have failed to uphold their side of the legal bargain that is “you can be the landlord as long as your property is livable”

upvote 12 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

Absolutely does not violate the 5th amendment what are you on about?

upvote 10 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

How would that be a 5th amendment violation

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

How does this violate the 5th amendment?

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 2w

Seizeing properties for code violations, I feel like usually the gotta be condemned to the that but idk

upvote -2 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

How is that any different from something like foreclosure. If you break the law or can't pay you lose your property.

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 2w

Foreclose u waive right cuz mortgage. Just from what I know usually penalties gotta be super sever with a huge amount of Lien by government and even then private sale makes more sense before gov sells it off. Plus most states have super strict auction rules so the owner doesn't get screwed.

upvote -2 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 2w

I mean I'm no expert but the article the homie posted litterally put in a statement from a New York small landlord group saying they are gonna sue if passed

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

They can sue all they want lmao if they’re going to continue to rip off the people of New York then it’s only fitting the city government does something about it

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

Bro this a takings clause question.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 2w

Wouldn't be shock but I think the whole picking the landlord under the third party transfer thing raises legitimate constitutional questions

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

bro’s defending landlords, what a loser

upvote 11 downvote
🫕
Anonymous replying to -> #4 2w

Not just landlords, slumlords who don’t even do their fake ass job right

upvote 14 downvote
🫕
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

Yeah you right, I don’t think it would be considered a taking to relieve a clearly irresponsible slumlord of the responsibilities he’s not taking care of though.

upvote 8 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

The third party transfer program was originally started in 1996 under Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani and lasted until 2019

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

no, governments can seize things to protect public health, safety, and welfare

upvote 7 downvote