New Bill of Rights Introduction

This blog is dedicated to coming up with implementation of the New Bill of Rights, the background of which is discussed in my book, THE EMINENT DOMAIN REVOLT: CHANGING PERCEPTIONS IN A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL EPOCH (New York: Algora Publishing, 2006).

Here is the text:

No individual shall be involuntarily deprived of liberty;
No individual shall be involuntarily deprived of housing;
No individual shall be involuntarily deprived of maintenance;
No individual shall be involuntarily deprived of medical care;
No individual shall be involuntarily deprived of education.

I am particularly interested in ongoing implementation and new possibilities of implementation.

For example, with respect to the education right, I am interested in the way it is being enforced in the Abbott v. Burke cases out of New Jersey. The cases are available online. Interestingly, the Dean of Boalt Law School claimed the other day that No Child Left Behind creates individual causes of action for the maintenance of education.

In the housing realm, I am particularly interested in cases of eminent domain involving housing. In particular, the Atlantic Yards Brooklyn case has a Federal complaint going using a "lack of government purpose" I suggested in the book.

In the housing realm also, I am interested in the response to the growing foreclosure rate. For example, there are proposals in both Michigan and Florida for a foreclosure moratorium. As an example of the discussion of how an outright ban might work, here is an example of some email traffic:

"JR - When the bank forcloses, the bank really excercises the accelleration clause in the mortgage and demands payment in full. Once that can't be made, the forclosure goes through the courts. Then the resident in effect becomes a tenant, and must be evicted according to the laws of the state. Again it goes to the courts. What I could see is that the courts are clogged, and the banks are happy to get a deed in lieu of payment and forebearance of the difference between what is owed and what the devalued property is now worth. Perhaps the now tenant pays off the difference in a lease type arrangement and gets to stay in the house. If the bank wants to run the whole thing through the courts it could take a long while, and the property be worth much less after possible vandalism and neglect. After all, who will mantain all the banks new property. May as well keep the neighborhood together and someone living in the home. Just keeping a vancant home insured is a big expense. Thats how I could see it. John Glad the link worked. If the government agreed to absorb the bad loans at face value then the banks could transfer the property title to the government. In return for this the banks would have to agree to a ban on evictions. This would be inflationary but should minimize the pain and keep house prices somewhat stable. How that improves affordability I have no idea?" I'm not so sure the government is obliged to assume the loans at face value. Banks are highly regulated, and I also wonder about the tax structure of banking profits. After all, banks are not independent entities, products of an untrammeled free market. They are creatures of Federal policy, which maintains them in their present state. I do wonder about bank exposure when hedge funds and institutional investors start suing them. At that point, it may be in the interests of the bank NOT to foreclose. What is more, what causes of action does the United States have against the banks on the basis of subprime mortgage bonds? I assume hedge funds and institutional investors have causes of action for conspiracy, negligence and fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and perhaps other causes of action (including violations of regulations which allow for private causes of action). In that case, does not the United States have the same causes of action against the banks? In that case, we are talking about new policies arising out of settlement conferences, rather than the simple mechanism of Federal debt assumption or shifting the property over to the Federal Government as a result of foreclosure. As a matter of fact, what causes do foreclosed HOMEOWNERS have against the banks, as well as the hedge funds and institutional investors, as well as the United States, for the mortgages? I include in this a cause of action against the United States, and other government entities, on the basis that the policy behind subprime mortgages does not have a government purpose, as that is used under minimum scrutiny.


Finally, in the liberty area, I am interested in extensions of the new individually enforceable right to liberty created by Lawrence v. Texas. This is not a rational basis, minimum scrutiny regime test. Kennedy used an entirely new standard for this case. I am looking for examples of the new right to liberty used OUTSIDE the sexuality/family context.