Because that’s not the issue before the court. if it comes up, it would presumably have to be raised as an issue by those affected, who have standing.
Are you saying that the supreme court telling us congress needs to do this (and not an agency) is their way of tricking everyone so they can say it is a “taking” sometime in the future?
It has nothing to do with trickery. Courts rule on the matter before them. Whether or how the Takings Clause applied was not part of the case at hand.
The Supreme Court was explicit. They said:
If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.
They said more (as posted before):
It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 582, 585–586 (1952) (concluding that even the Government’s belief that its action “was necessary to avert a national catastrophe” could not overcome a lack of congressional authorization). It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.
Right, but the ruling didn’t consider a potential Takings Clause challenge, because that argument wasn’t even made in the case.
So, you are suggesting the Supreme Court is egging on the legislative branch in order to shoot them down later?
You realize that Congress cannot pass unconstitutional laws, right? If Congress does so, then a challenge can/will be raised on that basis. SCOTUS doesn’t prejudge future laws.
What?
This is getting tiresome.
The Supreme Court said Congress can pass these laws/regulations. The CDC cannot.
End. Of. Story.
It’s been explained to you by multiple posters.
Let’s say next Spring, Congress passes such a law. Without providing just compensation to the landlords (after two years and counting have passed), landlords will have a case to challenge on Fifth Amendment grounds.
That’s absolutely not what the Supreme Court said.
Hypothetical all you want.
It’s what the Fifth Amendment says.
End of story.
The 5th has no bearing here.
Even SCOTUS never went there.
You are making stuff up to “prove” your point that has no bearing in reality.
For the last time, they didn’t because the application of the Takings Clause was not part of the case brought before them. It might be in the future.
For the last time, the SCOTUS explicitly said this was an issue for congress.
We have your feels vs what the Supreme Court wrote in their opinion.
Can Congress pass laws that violate the Constitution?
I mean, the have, but then they usually get overturned.
Do you think the Supreme Court, in their opinion, told the government to violate the constitution?
I think supply and demand will govern the decisions landlords make. If they can readily replace nonpaying tenants, they will evict the latter because there is no guarantee that the non-paying tenants will make up the money they owe. In fact, if the Delta Variant gets further out of hand as the weather turns bad, the moratorium on evictions may be reinstated, and they’ll really be stuck. On the other hand, if the market is lean, landlords may decide that financially iffy tenants are better than an empty apartments.
In the current decision you are correct that they don’t reference the 5th. However, if congress passes a law depriving landlords of their right to collect rent I would not be surprised to see it challenged on the basis of the 5th amendment.
Regardless of all that expect to see rents increase across the board to compensate for the additional risk.
The meaning of the Constitution is interpreted by the courts (including SCOTUS), not by random internet person D_Anconia. Your argument by assertion that this is what the Constitution means is no more persuasive than an argument by assertion that it means something else.
With this court, I would concede that all bets are off when it comes to interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. The justices seem to be going back to the interpretations of federal legislative and executive powers that were common before the 1930s, when FDR intimidated the court into allowing his expansion of federal power to become established practice.