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.

God is not All Powerful and Neither is the Pope

Some religous fundamentalists, have asserted, wrongly, that God is All Powerful. In fact, they even say that "there is nothing impossible for God." As Tom Shaffer, noted Notre Dame Law and Theology expert might tell us, God is bound by reason and logic. Thus, God cannot do that which is logically impossible. For example, God cannot have a grapefruit exist, and not exist, at the same time in the same place. Thus, we can confirm with Pope Innocent III and Grotius that God is bound by Reason, by His very Nature, and therefore cannot do that which is unreasonable and or illogical. Of course, the only authority that any Church Authority has is by, holding of God Himself, and therefore, every Pope and every Church Official is bound by the Rule of Reason, and anything that such a person might to which is unreasoable is a violation of Canon Law, and is invalid. This is especially true of Relgious Superiors in Catholic religious comunities, such as the Jesuits.

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.

The Only Valid Authority is a Reasonable Authority

Following Aristotelian Logic, it is a fallacious or false way of arguing to appeal to an authority, as such. You see, there is nothing to guarantee that a particular authority is telling you anything that is logically valid or reasonable. Thus, the only valid authority is a reasonable authority, and, you must determine in each individual case whether or not the authority is being reasonable or not. The foregoing is consistent with the Natural Law tradition descried by Grotius, and which is affirmed by the Pope, and the Catholic King, King Louis of France, and the Lutheran protestant King, King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. As Grotius tells us, every person, without exception, has a Natural Right, based on Natural Law, of Liberty and Property. This parallels the Philosopher John Locke, who stated that every person, without exception, has a Natural Right of Life, Liberty, and Property, and is also consitent with the Declaration of Independence with states that every person, without exception, has a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Given, the foregoing, it is clear that as a matter of Natural Right, each person can never be required to follow an unreasonable authority.

God, Natural Law, and the Declaration of Independence

The American Declaration of Independence states that God has endowed us with certain inalienable natural rights, enforced by natural law, which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Additonally, Grotius states that natural law, based upon reason, gives each one of us the natural rights of Liberty and Property, which, cannot be abrogated, even by God himself. Liberty is the freedom or freewill that each of us has to follow the Good, in our own way. Thus, any attempt to limit or cancel our Natual Law and Constitutional Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness involves a serious violation of Natural Law which is punishable in this life by prison, and in the afterlife by being sentenced to Purgatory Prison, which, is like Azkhaban. Of course, they say that being sentenced to Hell in the afterlife is even worse. And, in response to the theologians who say that a Good God would not allow any person to spend all of Eternity in Hell, the duration of an existant's or person's stay in Hell is now a finite number, which, of course, could be a period of time such as, One hundred thousand Trillion years.