youarewithinthenorms.com
NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC., SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS, MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., M.B.A., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, IN THE SPIRIT OF WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, AISHA GARDNER, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
the takings clause of the fifth amendment
This 3rd criticle article series outlines and explores the legal tension between the government’s police power and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically examining how regulatory overreach can infringe upon private property rights without compensation.
Through the lens of Richard Epstein’s legal theories and the harrowing case of the Lech family—whose home was destroyed during a police raid—the source argues that state authority is not a “free pass” to bypass the constitutional requirement for just compensation.
These authors point out that modern regulatory overreach and judicial rulings allow the state to bypass constitutional protections, unfairly burdening innocent citizens without providing just compensation.
Using the Lech family’s destroyed home and the professional ruin of Dr. Barbara Marino’s examples, the source critiques how agencies like the DEA and DOJ exercise “regulatory tyranny.”
It critiques a modern “schizophrenia” in law that often fails to protect individuals from regulatory tyranny, whether through the aggressive targeting of medical professionals by the DEA or the judicial misinterpretation of nuisance exceptions.
This 3-part series on Dr. Barbara D. Marino, MD., MD Anderson Cancer Center trained OB-Gyn Oncology Surgeon, Addiction Specialist, serves as a call for a unified legal standard that ensures any government action “going too far” in burdening an innocent owner is recognized as a taking that demands restitution.
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that the government must pay “just compensation”
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that the government must pay “just compensation” when it takes private property for public use. While the clause has traditionally been applied to direct seizures of property (such as using eminent domain to build a post office), the sources explore arguments for a much broader interpretation of the clause as a defense against government overreach and “Regulatory Tyranny”.
Richard Epstein’s Broader Interpretation Legal scholar Richard Epstein argues that the Takings Clause should not be interpreted narrowly. He asserts that the clause provides a theoretical blueprint to scrutinize a wide range of government actions, such as zoning, rent control, and taxation.
Epstein suggests that extensive government regulations that diminish property value should also be subject to the Takings Clause, fundamentally questioning the established view that the redistribution of wealth is a proper, constitutional function of government.
The Police Power Loophole and the Lech Case: A major legal conflict regarding the Takings Clause concerns its intersection with the state’s “police power,” the broad, inherent authority of the government to protect public health, safety, and morals. Historically, courts have ruled that if the government destroys or confiscates property because it is a “public nuisance” (such as a brewery during prohibition or trees infected with a contagious disease), it is not a “taking” and does not require compensation.
However, courts have recently used the police power to deny compensation to entirely innocent property owners. In the case of Lech v. Jackson, a fleeing shoplifter broke into the innocent Lech family’s home, leading to a five-hour police standoff.
Law enforcement utilized explosives, guns, and a battering ram, ultimately devastating the house to the point that it was condemned. When the Lech family sued for just compensation, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city owed them nothing because the destruction occurred under the guise of the police power.
COLLAPSING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Critique of the Police Power Exception: The source fiercely criticize this ruling, arguing that the police power should be considered the outer limit of government authority, not a “free pass to disregard the Takings Clause”. The author notes that:
- The Nuisance Exception is Limited: While the government can legally abate actual nuisances without paying, the Lechs were innocent citizens who did nothing unreasonable or illegal. Destroying their unoffending property should be considered a quintessential “taking”.
- Collapsing Constitutional Protections: According to the Supreme Court precedent set in Lingle v. Chevron, courts must first ask if an action is a reasonable use of police power under the Due Process Clause. If it is, they must then separately ask if the burden imposed on the private property “goes too far” and requires compensation under the Takings Clause. Exempting all police power actions from the Takings Clause wrongly collapses these two distinct constitutional protections, allowing the exception to swallow the rule.
THE CASE OF DR. BARBARA D. MARINO, MD
Connection to Medical Advocacy This legal analysis of the Takings Clause is presented as a direct parallel to the systemic struggles of physicians like Dr. Barbara Marino.
The underlying argument is that just as local law enforcement evades accountability for destroying innocent citizens’ homes, federal agencies like the DEA and DOJ use similar unchecked “Regulatory Tyranny” to destroy the practices and livelihoods of innocent medical professionals.
Within the medical community, there are outspoken advocates such as writer Angela Green, Dr. Muhammed Aly Rifai, MD, Pharmacist Steve, Bob Sheerin, Belinda Parker Brown, Claudia Merandi, Drs Mark Ibsen, LeslyPompy, Linda Cheek, Arnold Feldman et. al., who support and expose the injustice of the D.E.A. and DOJ, including the falsehoods propagated by the 20-year so-called Opioid Crisis, in which many physicians, dentists, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners have been targeted and should use it properly.
Enforcing the Takings Clause could serve as a blueprint to finally curb the aggressive, unaccountable overreach of these government agencies.
Dr. Rifia…. “struggle reveal that these agencies’ intrusions and overreaches are built on half-truths that support their foundation of Judicial Architectural Deception to imprison more medical providers with the utmost efficiency.”
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!
OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED
For now, you are within
the norms
REFERENCE:
THE FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEM OF JUSTICE
The tulsafication of doctor DR. Harvey Jenkins, MD
DR. SHIVA AKULA, MD TRIAL AND BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE
(20 YEARS FEDERAL PRISON)
AKULA 1.
AKULA 2.
