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.

Book Review of: Slaveholder's Union

George VanCleve has recently published his book, "Slaveholder's Union" (2010) (University of Chicago Press). To put it bluntly, VanCleve comes to the absurd conclusion that the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution were movtivated primarily to enshrine Slavery in America. There are several points to be made in relation to VanCleve's book. First, the title "Slaveholder's Union" is stupid. While VanCleve's book begin with analysis of the American Republic prior to the American Revolution, the rather misleading title he uses refers to the Union North during the American Civil War of the 1860's, where America was divided between the Union North and the Confederate South. VanCleve would have done better to emmulate the title found in the book, "Slaveholding Republic" by Don Fehrenbacher, published in 2001. Contrary to an assertion made in a synopsis of VanCleve's book, it is clear that the dispositive treatment of Slavery in America is Fehrenbacher's book, "Slaveholding Republic." Feherenbacher comes to the more balanced conclusion that the American Revolution has nothing to do with Slavery, one way or the other. My own scholarship indicates that the American Revolutionary movement laid the groundwork for the abolition of Slavery in America. The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 by King Charles II of England states that all laws must be in accorance with reason, that is, they must be reasonable. Similary, the British Constitution, Magna Charta (1215), incorported into the Maryland Constitution, guarantees that each person has a Natural Right to Liberty. Grotius, Europe's' greatest legal philosopher, wrote that all law must be in accordance with reason, and that Natural Law, providing that the Natural Right to Liberty , is inalienable and cannot be taken away. Finally, the American Declaration of Independence and the Pennsylvania Constiution both provide that each person, without exception, has a indefeasible right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore, I argue that the intellecual groundwork was laid to declare that blacks also have Natural Rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which act to abolish Slavery. Politically, you can see that if protection from Slavery was not included in the foregoing legal protections, then it would have been possible for there to be Slavery for Native Americans, Creole Whites, Mullat Blacks, relgious minorities, and ethnic minorities. Thus, it became apparent that if Black's could be unreasonably enslaved, then other groups could as well. Thus, both as a matter of Principle, and as a matter of rational self interest, a growing movement to abolish all Slavery began. This is affirmed by the fact that the Treaty between Britain and America ending the War of 1812 bound both countries to eliminate slavery as soon as possible. So, it is clear that the driving force behind the American movement for Independence was politically motivated by a desire to eliminate arbritrary government and ensure Individual Rights of each person based upon a Natural, inherent Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. VanCleve's first try at an academic book is a simpliste effort, and it is encouraging to note that Harvard is still putting out graduates with the caliber of George VanCleve.

Reviewed by Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif Member, United States Supreme Court Bar

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.