So if someone wants a cash infusion, they can evict their tenants without notice and get a years worth of rent instantly? I’m sure that won’t be abused.
Bonds are paid into court. They don’t go directly into the landlord’s pocket. Also nobody gets evicted without notice (and understand that notice is a term of art in this context–plenty of people get evicted without knowing about it or being actually made aware, but every state has a requirement that you have to do one of a limited number of things in order to provide notice to a tenant of an eviction).
This is a shitty law, but please don’t make stuff up or draw assumptions to pretend it’s worse than it actually is.
The problem this state (via the landlords’ lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation. If you’re just now becoming familiar with the value of litigants dragging out litigation, well, welcome to 2024.
I know social media despises landlords (and there’s very good reason to revile institutional real estate hoarders), but there are good public policy reasons to not want people squatting in properties rent-free, one of which is that if the landlord can’t get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead. There are much better ways to accomplish this than the way TN has here, but shotgun evictions are something we’d really like to avoid.
The problem this state (via the landlords’ lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation
Classic case of the solution being many times worse than the problem.
Also, people too poor to afford rent don’t tend to be able to afford dragging out litigation either. Lawyers are expensive and even if you manage to get pro bono representation, there’s likely to be limits.
if the landlord can’t get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead.
So the solution to landlords breaking the law to get rid of poor people is to make it unaffordable for poor people to contest unfair evictions?
Sounds like landlord logic…
shotgun evictions are something we’d really like to avoid.
Then take the gun away from landlords in stead of pointing one at homeless or soon to be homeless people.
My brother in Christ, I have worked in landlord-tenant on and off for decades, and I’ve been on both sides of many, many evictions. If you think courts always exercise their discretion fairly and equitably, I have a bridge to sell you.
I missed that it went to the court, the term payed rather than posed a bond or something suggested it went to the landlord. But to the court makes much more sense.
Without fail, another anti-LGBT Republican with stories about “sexual confusion” and “the temptation of same-sex relations” that all but confirm that they are queer and closeted.
A coworker of mine once tried to pick my brain on gay marriage say something to the effect of “people like you and I wouldn’t be resisting the urge if we didn’t know it was wrong”. I had to pop his bubble by explaining to him that I had never felt the temptation to be gay ever in my life because I am straight, but if I really wanted dick I’d seek it out because sex is fun and I’ll have it with anyone if think it will be mutually enjoyable.
He literally couldn’t wrap his brain around the idea that I was completely willing to have sex with any person that struck my fancy, but that men were never even a consideration. He was experiencing the exact opposite.
Needless to say, he’s still deeply closeted, but he doesn’t bring up gay marriage stuff anymore to me because I think I gave him an ongoing existential crisis. I hope he figures it out eventually…
But statistically, once you’re so deep in the closet that you’ve convinced yourself that everyone wants gay sex, and only “sinners” give into that urge, you’re probably not in the path to figuring anything out. Unfortunately, these people always vote for Fascism, constructing the prison that they themselves will be locked in.
It makes me wonder if a “straight people don’t have to fight gay urges” PR campaign might neuter a lot of this anti-gay angle. Turn these “inspirational” lies into admissions and use their hate against them.
Biden will die, but only after the DNC shoves him in via the remote vote they’re pushing, then we’re stuck with Kamala instead of having the chance for someone like Warren to step up…
I wish we weren’t so misogynistic and obsessed with name recognition… I think she would have been great if the old folks didn’t just vote the name they know who’s been around forever in the primaries in 16…
Depends on the timing tbh… If it was maybe 2-4 weeks out from the election, it could potentially galvanize Democratic voters and more people could end up voting for Harris because of it.
Don’t you just love how it’s all about states’ rights when it comes to things like abortion, but as soon as it’s gun control, the states’ rights don’t matter.
You forget that every adult (codes say male technically, so you could try disarming women and see what the supreme court says) not involved in military service is legally considered to be the unorganized militia, and only the national guard are considered the organized militia.
If called to arms by the President, they would be armed like/by the National Guard and/or requested to bring their own guns. The unorganized militia is also known as the reserve militia to the Guard. Hopefully there is never an invasion severe enough to call the entire country to arms, but it is 100% possible.
Everything is a law that can be changed, even the Constitution. It takes more to change certain laws, like the Constitution, and the Constitution prevents certain things from being part of laws. If you disagree with the 2nd, convince 75% of the country you are correct and we can change the law.
I hate to break it to you, but yes, the President does have that power as the Commander in Chief. Multiple States also have the same codified in State law, and the Governor can do so as well. There are prescriptions for both volunteer requests from the unorganized militia, as well as drafting them as well.
Here is Virginia’s laws on this matter for example, which mirror multiple other states laws:
Article 8. Unorganized Militia. § 44-85. Regulations and penalties.
Whenever any part of the unorganized militia is ordered out, it shall be governed by the same rules and regulations and be subject to the same penalties as the National Guard.
1930, p. 965; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(71); 2015, c. 221.
§ 44-86. When ordered out for service.
The commander in chief may at any time, in order to execute the law, suppress riots or insurrections, or repel invasion, or aid in any form of disaster wherein the lives or property of citizens are imperiled or may be imperiled, order out the National Guard and the inactive National Guard or any parts thereof, or the whole or any part of the unorganized militia. When the militia of this Commonwealth, or a part thereof, is called forth under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Governor shall order out for service the National Guard, or such part thereof as may be necessary; and he may likewise order out such a part of the unorganized militia as he may deem necessary. During the absence of organizations of the National Guard in the service of the United States, their state designations shall not be given to new organizations.
1930, p. 965; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(72); 1958, c. 393.
§ 44-87. Manner of ordering out for service.
The Governor shall, when ordering out the unorganized militia, designate the number to be so called. He may order them out either by calling for volunteers or by draft.
1930, p. 965; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(73); 1944, p. 25; 1958, c. 393; 1984, c. 765.
§ 44-88. Incorporation into the Virginia Defense Force.
Whenever the Governor orders out the unorganized militia or any part thereof, it shall be incorporated into the Virginia Defense Force until relieved from service.
1944, p. 25; Michie Suppl. 1946, § 2673(73); 1984, c. 765; 2011, cc. 572, 586.
§ 44-89. Draft of unorganized militia.
If the unorganized militia is ordered out by draft, the Governor shall designate the persons in each county and city to make the draft, and prescribe rules and regulations for conducting the same.
1930, p. 965; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(74).
§ 44-90. Punishment for failure to appear.
Every member of the militia ordered out for duty, or who shall volunteer or be drafted, who does not appear at the time and place ordered, shall be liable to such punishment as a court-martial may direct.
1930, p. 965; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(75); 1958, c. 393.
The only body with the authority to raise an Army is Congress. And they have a draft system. Which they’re also trying to get rid of because it’s massively unpopular.
For everyone else the 13th amendment applies. You cannot force someone to work for you. And that Virgina law is from 1930, so unconstitutional from day 1.
If people want to volunteer that’s a different story, but then again, we have organizations for that, state guards, national guards, state reserves, rural emergency volunteer teams, etc.
The idea that any state could draft its people into a militia is ridiculous and unconstitutional.
So your argument is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “la la la, I can’t hear you”? Just because you don’t believe that a law would ever be used, doesn’t mean it isn’t real and cannot be used. Just because a law was ratified in 1930 doesn’t mean it no longer exists. There is not statue of limitations on how long laws exist for, and laws don’t die of old age.
Yeah, no shit the congress is the only body that can raise an army. No one is arguing otherwise. The army and the militia are two different things. The President activates the National Guard to active duty, done by Executive Order.
Just because the draft is unpopular doesn’t mean that you couldn’t be drafted tomorrow if WW3 broke out. Until it is repealed, it is still the law and can be used. Until there is a lawsuit that takes one of the many laws surrounding the unorganized militia before the Supreme Court and it gets ruled unconstitutional, it’s still legal. Texas, California, New York, Ohio, and Florida all have similar laws to Virginia, none have been struck down as unconstitutional or a violation of the 13th Amendment.
The idea that a foreign power could invade the continental US or that we could have another actual civil war is or should be ridiculous, but that in and of itself won’t stop either of those things from happening. If they do happen, watch how quickly people get drafted into their State Guard when a shooting war is taking place.
No, my idea is that the law is unconstitutional and the only time I can even find a governor trying to use it was to break a strike. Forcing the strikers to work, to which the answer was, “fuck you check the Constitution”.
And you may want to semantically split hairs on militia but it’s still a military unit, and as such, an Army. Which neither the governor or President has the authority to raise on their own. The Constitution is shockingly clear on this, I’m not sure how this is even an argument.
To be fair, gun rights are an actual constitutional right. I don’t think the democrats ever tried to make an amendment to include abortion rights. For them, the threat of losing it was a good campaign issue.
The idea that control over your own body and medical decisions can’t be sourced in the Constitution is ridiculous. If we don’t have the right to that then we don’t have the right to anything.
Correct. We also don’t have a right to privacy or many other things we all wish we had. A lot of what we rely on is just the court’s interpretation of laws and the constitution. We’ve recently seen how fragile those interpretations can be.
Might also be because a senator for the local dumb dumb party wanted to kick them out. Australian officials kinda love doing that as publicity. Freaking out on American celebrities is a political game, ever since someone did it to Johnny Depp and Amber Herd… And their dogs… And private jet that didn’t bother with docking at customs.
The problem is that accusing people of being trolls/paid actors is also a troll/paid actor tactic. Banning that behavior limits the propagandists, and still allows you to report them.
I mean, that’s not wrong, but what I was getting at is that trolls specifically try to deflect by preemptively claiming others are trolls, so when they’re accused of trolling, it looks like he-said-she-said.
Take that tool away from them by reporting them instead of responding. Or in other words… Don’t feed the trolls.
The withdrawal was a pretty solid piece of weasely political wrangling on the part of the trump admin. He gets to take credit for ending the war, kick the implementation down the road to the next term, and even though Biden was just following the plan that was already in place he gets the blame for the inevitable clusterfuck.
I’m really curious how Trump would have handled it if he’d won. My guess is do exactly what Biden did (it was Trump’s plan, after all) and downplay the negatives, swearing that it was the most successful withdrawal in history.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.