Fejfar on Nuisance Law

FEJFAR ON NUISANCE LAW

Nuisance Law is a hybrid of Property Law and Tort Law. The general idea of nuisance law is that a neighboring landowner can bring an action in tort for nuisance against an adjoining landowner who is using his or property in a way which unreasonably harms the person, financial interests, or property of the harmed adjoining landowner. Thus, there is the Latin phrase, "Sic Utere Tuo ut Alienum non Laedas," which means, "You cannot unreasonably use your property in such a way that it unreasonably harms another." In this sense, we can see that Private Property rights are not absolute, and instead, any property interest must be interpreted in light of The Rule of Reason. (See Grotius, Natural Rights and Natural Law 1625 A.D.) Thus, it is not an Unconstitutional Taking of Property for Purposes of the 5th or 14 Amendments, when property or a business is subject to reasonable business regulation. See generally, Justice Holmes' Judicial Opinion, in the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (Any governmental regulation of business and or property is valid if it is reasonable and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, however, if a regulation goes too far by being unreasonable, then this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property for purposes of the Takings and Substantive Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, Reason is defined, using cognitive of faculty psychology as a composite of love, logic, and intuition, where "love' is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward, and where "logic" is defined as a statement, proof, or argument which does not involve a logical contradiction such as (A and not A), in the same time and in the same place, and, where, "intuition" is defined as that cognitive faculty which involves the use or high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.

Lochner vs. New York is a Substantive Due Process Case not a Contracts Clause Case

In the law school case books, and in the West Key Number Head Notes, the United States Supreme Court Case of Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), is reported wrongly, to be a Contracts clause case, which involves Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution (the Contracts Clause). However, if you read the original United States Supreme Court Opinion in Lochner vs. New York, Lochner was a Substantive Due Process Clause case involving the 14th Amendment, Substantive Due Process Clause. Lochner states that the Natural Right of Liberty, found in the Declaration of Independence, cannot be limited, except in accordance with reason, following Grotius, Magna Charta, and Natural Law. Thus, the United States Supreme Court, in Lochner, states that the constitutional standard for upholding the validity of a law which impinges upon the Liberty interest of an individual person, such as the right to contract with an employer, for employment, must be in accordance with reason. Thus, the Court in Lochner states that for any law to be valid, it must involve a direct relationhship to an end which is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Thus, it is obvious that, under Lochner, it is an unconstitutional violation of Substantive Due Process to interfere with the mentally ill, or ethnic or racial minorities, in contracting for employment, by enacting a minimum wage law which provides a lower wage for the mentally ill, or for ethnic or racial minorities. Obviously, if a person is good enough to do the work, the person is good enough to get paid the same as anyone else doing the same work. This also means that all guardianship laws, especially "professional guardianships" are unconstitutional under Substantive Due Process. Put another way, Substantive Due Process prohibits a "Badge of Slavery." This follows the legal principle, set forth in Lochner, that it is unconstitutional for a state law to unreasonably interfere with the Liberty interest, of each person, to have the power to contract for employment, or enter into any other type of contract. All guardianships are unconstitutional "Badges of Slavery," which violate the Declaration of Indpendence, Natural Law, and Magna Charta. That any "Badge of Slavery" is unconstitutional and illegal in the United States is confirmed by the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, ending the War of 1812, which required to United States to begin the process of ending Slavery.