Let me present my understanding of who the lines of argumentation go, this is like my homework on constitutional studies, so to speak, feel free to correct me.
LINE of ARGUMENTs of the CAI supporters:
2. The HOAs are not governments, they are simply quasi-governments, therefore, the constitution cannot be applied to HOAs.
First, by procedurally I mean the formation of the HOA did not follow the
procedures set forth in the appropriate state statutes. Therefore, they
are not a government answerable and subject to the state. Second, as such,
HOAs cannot exercise certain functions retained by the legal civil government,
like imposing fines or police powers to imprison.
However, that does not mean they are not a government, because by that
definition other nations and political subdivisions in other countries would
not be a considered a government, which is ridiculous. C'mon guys, step outside
the box created by years of CAI propaganda and brainwashing -- think! So,
the argument really boils down to a silly one -- HOAs are not governments
because they didn't apply to be a government.
And that includes unincorporated towns! Are they governments or not governments and why? What then is an incorporated town?
The HOAs have not been ruled either way, just that some of their functions
are also used by nonprofit organizations, too. For example, the classic
case involved a ruling that if there are no public streets, the HOA could
not be a government. A poor decision made way back. Further, and many are
incapable of understanding that you must ask the USSC the right question,
backed by the right arguments and ask for the right remedy.
If you read any of the lengthier cases you will frequently see opinions
like, "the court was in error in their opinion because ..." and a new contrary
opinion given, or selected parts of a precedent opinion being used to justify
the current argument. The courts are not black and white that many so called
intellectual would like it to be. In fact, what you are seeing are the courts
making law "on the fly", often contradicting prior interpretations, but always
holding homeowners to these new and often novel interpretations of the law.
This is disgraceful!
I do not proclaim to have all the answers, but those opposing constitutionality
arguments just offer opinions without arguments that cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Rep. Farnsworth had called CAI on this during the legislative session when
he asked for documentation rather than opinion and conjecture.
I call on those opposed to the fundamental rights and constitutionality
arguments to make their case in opposition. They won't because they can't
without going against the principles of American governance and for all it
stands for and it protections of our liberties. So, why is the point of
their opposition, I ask again?
To view and/or print a FREE newsletter designed to bring all sides of the issues to your attention, please go to Newsletter to view archives (Please distribute to other email lists and groups)
Citizens Against Private Government HOAs
"Hoa citizens are US citizens first!"
George K. Staropoli