U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2014, 05:46 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,739 posts, read 8,950,593 times
Reputation: 3857

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by spencgr View Post
Unfortunately, the freedom to enjoy a reasonable tranquility in your home is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Many people are irritated by neighbors doing many different things, not just parties. What if my neighbor decides to park 5 work trucks, an old school bus, and two muscle cars in their yard? Whenever I look out the window to see the beautiful Loudoun countryside, all I see is this ugly parking lot? Because I am irritated, should there be a law against this?
I agree it's not guaranteed in the Constitution. However, there should be and usually is a law against such things in any given jurisdiction--precisely because most people would find such behavior intolerable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spencgr View Post
Only in America - our biggest problem is having to park farther away from our house because someone is legally, peacably assembling? Thank you, thank you, Founding Fathers!! You precise and pointed words creating our Constitution have held up wonderfully for 235+ years.
In point of fact, they considered black people 3/5 a person and did not give women the right to vote at all. They were products of their time, and so were many of their ideas. Thank goodness for the amendment process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2014, 06:01 PM
 
3,154 posts, read 3,050,350 times
Reputation: 8686
It's completely reasonable. It's 50 people - that's not an ordinary gathering or even an ordinary party. And it only disallows having more than about three of them a month, so even if you wanted to have a wedding at your home or something like that, you would not be affected. Anyone having more than 50 people over their house more than three times a month is going to cause problems in the neighborhood and interfere with other people's ability to enjoy where they live. I can't see why anyone thinks this is a problem, unless they are running some kind of activity in their home that more properly belongs somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 06:03 PM
 
3,154 posts, read 3,050,350 times
Reputation: 8686
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencgr View Post
Not sure what Constitution you were taught, but the exact, original verbiage is:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


If the right to assemble was directly tied to the right to petition (only assemble with the point of petitioning), there wouldn't be the comma separating the two.



Bill of Rights Transcript Text


We are granted the express right to peaceably assemble.
But not anywhere you want, anytime. You can't assemble in the middle of a highway or clog up a downtown without permission, for example. Same deal here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 06:11 PM
 
7,934 posts, read 9,659,084 times
Reputation: 13960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnseca View Post
But not anywhere you want, anytime. You can't assemble in the middle of a highway or clog up a downtown without permission, for example. Same deal here.
Not the same deal at all. There are laws that require permits for assembling in public spaces. This law proposes limiting assembly in privates spaces and doesn't even allow for the permit process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 06:14 PM
 
7,934 posts, read 9,659,084 times
Reputation: 13960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post



In point of fact, they considered black people 3/5 a person and did not give women the right to vote at all. They were products of their time, and so were many of their ideas. Thank goodness for the amendment process.
Agree with you here, although I am grateful not one of the first 10 amendments have been amended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 08:17 AM
 
518 posts, read 783,019 times
Reputation: 447
The statute states no more than 49 a day not at once.

The ordinance would limit the number of people one could have in their home to 49 a day, and to exceed that limit more than 3 times in any 40-day period would be a violation of law.

In regards to local authorities enforcing statutes such as this, Federal law trumps local law. Lower level agencies may enact laws to try and control these things but the legality of such laws will crumble when put up against the Federal standard. Look at the current slew of "sanctity of marriage" acts that have been altered/stricken from the books due to the Supreme Court case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Tysons Corner
2,772 posts, read 3,644,468 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencgr View Post
Not the same deal at all. There are laws that require permits for assembling in public spaces. This law proposes limiting assembly in privates spaces and doesn't even allow for the permit process.
There are also laws that limit the ability to run bars, restaurants, and other business practices which have detrimental affect on adjacent properties, its called zoning. This isn't precedent if the actions of one property have detrimental affect on others. You aren't allowed to do "anything" you want on your land. You cant burn pollutants or waste that may cause problems down wind. You can't build a water reservoir without proper permits and reason. Lots of things you are not allowed to do on your property if the land use doesn't allow.

Arguing based on a set of 10 rules, constructed by people who didn't even have proper plumbing, sanitation, or pollution understandings that have become evident 250 years later is asinine. Would you have the impounding of mercury, lead, or anthrax be legal on private property as well? Afterall, the founding fathers had no specific stance on those materials at the time. How about uranium and plutonium?

And yes, detriment in terms of parking is a regulatory authority of LOCAL jurisdictions. After all, the parking occurs on public roads (if not overflowed onto private frontage), hence why parking permit signs are perfectly constitutional. So if an authority who maintains and operates those spaces says, one property is detrimentally using that public space by overly using it, then they are allowed to regulate.

And it doesn't end at parking. Time after time the higher courts have upheld local noise ordinance regulations, storm and sanitary regulations, irrigation regulations (in times of drought for instance), and go even further by allowing architectural and use regulations (COA and HOA covenants dictating the regulation of house colors, building materials, etc).

Whether some areas go to far is a completely different argument that should be decided based on the voting public (i for one thing COAs and HOAs for instance have too much power, and that zoning ordinances are too cookie cutter and limit good planning) but that is rectified by voting, not by the courts. The courts have already decided that local jurisdictions DO have the power to regulate these types of land use decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,291 posts, read 15,361,858 times
Reputation: 11269
Quote:
Originally Posted by roninsedge View Post
The statute states no more than 49 a day not at once.

The ordinance would limit the number of people one could have in their home to 49 a day, and to exceed that limit more than 3 times in any 40-day period would be a violation of law.

In regards to local authorities enforcing statutes such as this, Federal law trumps local law. Lower level agencies may enact laws to try and control these things but the legality of such laws will crumble when put up against the Federal standard. Look at the current slew of "sanctity of marriage" acts that have been altered/stricken from the books due to the Supreme Court case.
Seems like the federal level should recognize that they have no say in those matters and leave it up to the localities to decide.

The makers of the Constitution obviously did not plan for neighborhoods where houses are so close together. And it can get annoying if a neighbor has large gatherings every weekend. Seems like the best approach would consider this as a local issue. All localities are not the same, and they don't have the same values.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
In point of fact, they considered black people 3/5 a person and did not give women the right to vote at all. They were products of their time, and so were many of their ideas. Thank goodness for the amendment process.
Just to clear this up - the 3/5 rule was enacted not to devalue black people. The South wanted the black counted as full people for representation (larger presence in House of Rep.), but did not want them taxed. The North wanted the opposite. In other words, the owners were looking out for their own interests - just like they do today.

Last edited by DRob4JC; 05-29-2014 at 09:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top