- “Special economic zones can be anything from tools of crony capitalism to seeds of a freer world order.” [Tom W. Bell on The Political Economy of Special Economic Zones by Lotta Moberg]
- 33 state constitutions have “baby Ninths,” which like federal version suggest existence and protection of some unenumerated individual rights. Potential there [Anthony B. Sanders, Rutgers Law Review forthcoming/SSRN]
- Judge hears argument on Seattle law ordering landlords to accept first otherwise qualified tenant who applies [Heidi Groover/The Stranger, earlier]
- Labeling of food, other products as “natural” helps keep class action lawyers in business [Julie Creswell, New York Times]
- SESTA, FOSTA, and trafficking: L.A. Times editorial warns on dangers of abridging Section 230 protections for Internet freedom [earlier here, here, etc.]
- Saga of Zen Magnets versus the CPSC, told in detail [Alan Prendergast, Westword (Denver); earlier; related, Nancy Nord]
Filed under: Buckyballs, constitutional law, CPSC, landlord tenant law, Seattle
5 Comments
On the rental property case, cities have already tilted the table in favor of tenants. It can be almost impossible to evict someone for illegal activity but then the landlord can be held liable and even get their property taken away (e.g., for dealing drugs). If they fail to pay rent, again it can be impossible to get rid of them. I am amazed anyone rents properties. You can often tell a lot about someone (they look crazy or dangerous) by meeting them.
The CPSC (in the Zen Magnets case above) could significantly increase public safety first by declaring all its regulatory actions null and void, then disbanding.
CPSC is fighting to the bitter end to enforce its asinine finding: if a product is not safe for 3 year old children then it is unsafe for adults. Any unexplained buzzing sounds you may hear are likely America’s founders turning in their graves.
Shouldn’t that be “baby tenths”? The 9th Amendment says that any topic not mentioned in the list of Congress’s enumerated powers is either a matter for state legislation or an individual right — not a federal power. It is the 10th which asserts the existence of unenumerated rights.
I long for justices who will read these two together as the explicit requirement of strict construction that they were obviously intended to be.
“I read the original blog post differently from you. Specifically, this part:”
Seriously? Have you read the text of the 9th amendment?
But commerce somewhere near a road is soooo obviously a federal power… Standing army anyone? If a judge actually read the constitution to mean what it actually says as opposed to what politicians want it to mean we would have a different country.