Doesn't the Takings Clause Require Gov to Compensate People for COVID Business Closures and Work Stoppage? [Yes but "Your Rights" Must Yield to Authority in the Cult of Statism] NM Court to Decide

FUNKTIONARY EXPLAINS:

Statism - the belief "citizens"' and "states" exist and the memetic thought patterns supporting such beliefs. 2) the religion of oppression and domination coupled with the science of exploitation and sociopathic control. 3) the opiate of the so-called Elites. 4) a philosophy that idealizes majority rule gang force (authority) over individual authenticity (autonomy). 5) servitude over liberty and statutes over humanity. So long as "states"' are viewed and accepted as natural, normal, reality-based and inevitable, they will continue to violently abstract humans into extinction. Statism is mind control; people both unwillingly and willingly surrender their property (labor being one's most inviolable property) to men and women pretending to be "governors,"" "commissioners," and "presidents" etc. because they believe they are "citizens" of a so-called "state" and must pay their proverbial "fair share" to support such abstractions or fictions of law. [MORE]

Tyrannolaw - a peremptory (beyond debate or recall) system of law held to be superior to humanity, such that whenever the two are in conflict, humanity must yield. Typified by too many self-propagating laws, contrived complexity, debatable interpretations, encroachment, abuse, corruption, symbolaeography, and overdeveloped unrelenting and violent enforcement. Tyrannolaw subjugates humanity to unyielding, despotic, blind and arbitrary authority—resulting in constraint, conformity and fear. Tyrannolaw is the by-product from the myth that truth and law came from God. Reflect for a minute and realize that if people can't manage themselves, how can they possibly manage law. Law cannot prevent its abuse.

From [HERE] and [MORE] The New Mexico Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether businesses which lost income due to Covid-19 shutdowns can seek compensation from the state under rules governing regulatory takings.

The high court took up a petition for writ of superintending control and emergency request for stay brought by the state involving plaintiffs in 20 lawsuits brought across the state. The plaintiffs claim business closures and restrictions brought under public health emergency orders constituted regulatory takings and thus the businesses are entitled to compensation under New Mexico’s Public Health Emergency Response Act.

At the heart of the dispute is the concept of a legal “taking.” Under the U.S. Constitution, a regulatory taking occurs when a government regulation limits the uses of private property to such a degree that the owners are deprived of the use or value of their property.

Although shelter in place orders may be necessary they are nevertheless Government seizures of people’s livelihoods and businesses that have forced indefinite closures and widespread layoffs. The government’s actions may be described as “uncompensated takings” that violate the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. That is, the government is legally obligated to properly compensate citizens for their tangible losses.

Because the orders would be characterized to effect an alleged regulatory (rather than physical) taking, a fact-intensive, multi-factor analysis applies. The Orders constitute a regulatory taking implemented for a recognized public purpose, and therefore the failure to pay just compensation contravenes the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); Horne v. Dep't of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2426 (2015) (“Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause, or our precedents, suggests that the rule is any different when it comes to appropriation of personal property. The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”). [MORE]

Chief Justice Michael Vigil Sr., Justices Barbara Vigil, Shannon Bacon, David Thomson, and retired Court of Appeals Judge Michael Bustamante heard initial statements by attorney Nicholas Sydow, representing the state, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and state Secretary of Health Kathyleen Kunkel.

The state argued closures mandated by public health orders do not constitute takings because they are by nature temporary and because property cannot be used in a manner that endangers public health and safety. “It’s not taking away property rights,” Sydow argued, “it’s ensuring that the property will not be used in a way that endangers the public health and safety.”

Further, Sydow said the very nature of the adaptive health orders, which expire in a matter of weeks and which in New Mexico have changed to reflect the best information about the spread and treatment of Covid-19, mean they are not arbitrary or capricious. He said the rules governing the operation of restaurants, close-contact businesses such as salons and others have altered as scientific understanding of how and when people are likely to spread Covid-19 has evolved.

When questioned by the justices, Sydow asserted if there is compensation to be offered to business owners, it should be determined by the Legislature, not by the courts, and offered to all businesses affected by the pandemic.

The plaintiffs’ attorney A. Blair Dunn of Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates argued the closures did constitute a taking because the right to have property — and not have it taken by the government — is a fundamental liberty under the Bill of Rights. To interfere in the operation of private businesses without offering compensation, he argued, violates that liberty.

Asked by Senior Justice Barbara Vigil whether the closures might be covered under the police powers exception to regulatory takings — which says takings prompted by a danger to public health or safety aren’t entitled to compensation — Dunn argued that should be decided on a case-by-case basis in state courts rather than decided broadly in a single hearing. Different business models, he argued, might or might not offer different risks to the public.

“There isn’t some blanket, blank-check limitless exception to the use of police powers,” Dunn argued, “that removes this action by the government from any sort of analysis at the district court level.”

On rebuttal, Sydow brought the focus back to the matter of state law. “This court isn’t being asked to entertain a collective motion for summary judgment [against the individual lawsuits], but to determine as a matter of law that the public health orders cannot support takings claims.”

The justices will issue a ruling soon.