Grizz12 said:
...There is a right to due process but that has nothing to do with compensation.
Perhaps you should try reading the Bill of Rights. See the Fifth Amendment (emphasis added):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
But the bottom line is the zukiphile is educated in and understands these matters. You, on the other hand, not so much.
Let's take a brief detour for a basic lesson in civics and the Constitution. (See also,
Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer)
Our's is a federal system.
States are sovereign, political entities. At the time of the founding of our nation each State or Commonwealth effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution. Our nation would not have come into existence had the States/Commonwealths not retained an acceptable degree of sovereignty.
A fundamental attribute of government is what's known as
police power:
The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.
The authority of States/Commonwealths is acknowledged (not conferred) by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Each State/Commonwealth has its own constitution as well. And since in the United States each State or Commonwealth has its own government in the form of a representative democracy, the people in each have the opportunity to influence what laws are adopted and how they are implemented.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1833 the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the doctrine evolved of applying some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis. Thus those enumerated rights found applicable to the State have also become limiting factor on the exercise by States of their police power. But that doesn't necessarily require that laws be uniform from State to State.
So as zukiphile pointed out:
zukiphile said:
Other rights are regulated or policed differently from state to state.
You have a right to travel; whether you have the right to drive at .09%BAC or at 75mph may change from state to state.
You have a right to due process in the taking of your property for imminent domain, but the purpose for which your property may be taken can vary from state to state.
You have a right to marry if you are single, but who you can marry has historically and largely been a matter of state regulation....
For another example we could look at rights protected by the First Amendment. There are no doubt different free speech laws in Montana and New York (and other States).So, for example, some laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges, even though such laws abridge rights protected by the First Amendment. Such laws are usually local. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning or late night hours.
Permit processes which have survived challenge have done because they were found by a court to be acceptable under the First Amendment, and there is a fairly extensive body of law defining the attributes of a permit process which will be acceptable under the First Amendment. But permit systems within such constraints can, and certainly will, still vary from place to place. See, for example:
- Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...
- Cf. McCullen v. Coakley (U. S. Supreme Court, No. 12–1168, 2014)
- In McCullen the Court struck down a new Massachusetts "buffer zone" law. As noted in the opinion the Court had previously sustained a different sort of buffer zone law in Colorado, and nothing in McCullen casts any doubt on the continued validity of the Colorado law (McCullen, slip opinion at 2):
….The statute [the prior Massachusetts law] was modeled on a similar Colorado law that this Court had upheld in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000). Relying on Hill, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Massachusetts statute against a First Amendment challenge. McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F. 3d 45 (2004) (McGuire II), cert. denied, 544 U. S. 974 (2005); McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36 (2001) (McGuire I).
By 2007, some Massachusetts legislators and law enforcement officials had come to regard the 2000 statute as inadequate.....
- Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...
