What are the most illogical U.S. laws you can think of?

[Curious George]

I dealt a lot with student housing. That was where the trouble was.
I got out of that. No more trouble. But any landlord with enuf tenants
& years in the business will accumulate horror stories. We trade them.

I know. Get enough landlords together and you could spoil the mood of Disney world with the bitterness that emanates. If a psychologist wanted to study echo chambers they should focus on the shared trauma of landlords.

These laws deserve mention because they directly address the title of the thread.
If complying with fair housing laws violates zoning laws, then this is illogical.

No such discrepancy exists today.

 

[Revoltingest]

No such discrepancy exists today.

So you must be familiar with the city's zoning laws,
applicable fair housing laws, & relevant court rulings.
Then you could relate to me a sample conflict which
has been resolved, eh?
(This'll test you to see if you're knowing or posing.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just remembered, a law on the books here is pinball machines are illegal because, allegedly, they "encourage gambling."

 

[Estro Felino]

1)The laws that allow teachers to teach Creationism, surely. Just thinking of the situation where a teacher speaks of that stuff with their students, makes me die laughing.
2) The fact that the US is the only country in the Americas that forbids....
http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_snb_e2ae497c451f227a735c3a16ad90f139

The age limit for alcohol being at 21 years while the age limit for everything else is at 18 years.

At the pub I saw the bartender selling alcoholic drinks to middle schoolers.
What a dissolute country we are

 

[Revoltingest]

I just remembered, a law on the books here is pinball machines are illegal because, allegedly, they "encourage gambling."

No one can replace Robert Preston....

 

[Curious George]

So you must be familiar with the city's zoning laws,
applicable fair housing laws, & relevant court rulings.
Then you could relate to me a sample conflict which
has been resolved, eh?
(This'll test you to see if you're knowing or posing.)

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) single family zoning and regulating of what a family consists is ok.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). local definition of family may violate substantive due process
Charter twp. Of Delta v. Dinolfo, 351 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. 1984) ordinances that assign number of unrelated people living together are not ok.

Ewing Citizens for Civil Rights, Inc. v. Twp. Of Ewing, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpublished. Lexis 647 (N.J. App. Div. 2010). Minimum floor area is ok as long as it is of general application and reasonable.


And that should be sufficient. The last case is not technically binding but shows that the federal government has not said floor area requirements are discriminatory. So there is no conflict between ann arbor law and federal fair housing laws.

 

[Euronymous]

Okay, I haven't read all the replies (I read some, I'll read the others later). Anyways, another law that is dumb is marijuana laws. How come it is a-okay to smoke cigarettes & drink alcohol (which are worse for you) in all 50 U.S. states, but you can't legally smoke marijuana, or even possess it, in most U.S. states?

 

[LionLooking]

What are the most illogical U.S. laws you can think of?
Two spring to mind - the right of citizens to bear arms, and capital punishment.

 

[Curious George]

What are the most illogical U.S. laws you can think of?
Two spring to mind - the right of citizens to bear arms, and capital punishment.

Are you just offering those to be contentious or do you really see no reasoning behind either?

 

[LionLooking]

Are you just offering those to be contentious or do you really see no reasoning behind either?

I honestly see no logical reason for either of these - the first increases the murder rate while the second basically says 'killing is wrong, therefore we shall kill you'. That's illogical.

 

[Curious George]

I honestly see no logical reason for either of these - the first increases the murder rate while the second basically says 'killing is wrong, therefore we shall kill you'. That's illogical.

Well damn that is two separate threads. Do you have a preference, if I just start one?

 

[LionLooking]

Well damn that is two separate threads. Do you have a preference, if I just start one?

Sorry, I was giving my honest answer to the thread's title.
If my opinion is not welcome here then I'll withdraw.
My apologies for intruding.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry, I was giving my honest answer to the thread's title.
If my opinion is not welcome here then I'll withdraw.
My apologies for intruding.

You are welcome to them, and you are certainly not intruding. I was just surprised that a person couldn't see the other side of arguments that are so prevalent. They are also really charged topics so I felt like discussing them here would derail too much. So I figure I would start another thread. When you responded that both were illogical, I was like "two threads-maybe that is too much work...I wonder which lion would rather discuss"

I chose capital punishment because you hadn't answered. Perhaps you can go take a look, argue your point, or listen to people argue theirs.

Cheers

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bicyclists must ride in streets as opposed to the sidewalk. For " safety" reasons.

 

[Revoltingest]

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) single family zoning and regulating of what a family consists is ok.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). local definition of family may violate substantive due process
Charter twp. Of Delta v. Dinolfo, 351 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. 1984) ordinances that assign number of unrelated people living together are not ok.

Ewing Citizens for Civil Rights, Inc. v. Twp. Of Ewing, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpublished. Lexis 647 (N.J. App. Div. 2010). Minimum floor area is ok as long as it is of general application and reasonable.


And that should be sufficient. The last case is not technically binding but shows that the federal government has not said floor area requirements are discriminatory. So there is no conflict between ann arbor law and federal fair housing laws.

I appreciate your spending some time doing research, and
that such conflicts have been resolved in some jurisdictions.
But you specifically named my town. No case is from here?
Moreover, your cited decisions pre-date the problems I saw,
defeating your claim.....
"No such discrepancy exists today."

My approach was always.....
- Comply with the laws with the biggest teeth.
- Do what is in the best interest of both my clients & tenants.
- Give full disclosure of the legal situation in the lease.
(Every unit I managed had its own special page dealing with square footage, zoning,
restrictions, etc. This worked well to inform tenants, & to protect me from specious suits.)
This minimized the problems.

What's your purpose in this thread?
You've ignored the thread's theme, which is illogical laws.
Instead, you've pounced upon this tangent.
Anyone can look up court decisions on the internet, but this
doesn't fully illuminate the legal environment of residential
landlording, particularly when law enforcement doesn't
entirely comport with laws on the books.
What experience do you have in the field?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bicyclists must ride in streets as opposed to the sidewalk. For " safety" reasons.

That’s right. What’s the problem with that (especially since it’s true)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Punishing someone for making an honest mistake? I mean, c'mon; that's absolutely not right.

Imagine that... a perpetrator saying that his crime was an honest mistake.

The police and prosecutors - who I notice weren’t interviewed in that video - had the discretion not to press charges if they thought that it was just an honest misunderstanding.

This guy shouldn't have went to jail or be put on the sex offender registry, since he didn't know that the girl was underage, so why punish him?

Does “he says he didn’t know” necessarily imply “he didn’t know?”

I would think that the line “I didn’t know she was an underage” would be as much a cliche for sexual predators as “I was just holding it for a friend” is for drug dealers.

 

[Curious George]

I appreciate your spending some time doing research, and
that such conflicts have been resolved in some jurisdictions.
But you specifically named my town. No case is from here?
Moreover, your cited decisions pre-date the problems I saw,
defeating your claim.....
"No such discrepancy exists today."

My approach was always.....
- Comply with the laws with the biggest teeth.
- Do what is in the best interest of both my clients & tenants.
- Give full disclosure of the legal situation in the lease.
(Every unit I managed had its own special page dealing with square footage, zoning,
restrictions, etc. This worked well to inform tenants, & to protect me from specious suits.)
This minimized the problems.

What's your purpose in this thread?
You've ignored the thread's theme, which is illogical laws.
Instead, you've pounced upon this tangent.
Anyone can look up court decisions on the internet, but this
doesn't fully illuminate the legal environment of residential
landlording, particularly when law enforcement doesn't
entirely comport with laws on the books.
What experience do you have in the field?

I chose leading case law that is on point. I am not sure what the particular case you "saw" but Ann Arbor city zoning laws are not at odds with federal fair housing laws. You were mistaken.

 

[Revoltingest]

I chose leading case law that is on point. I am not sure what the particular case you "saw" but Ann Arbor city zoning laws are not at odds with federal fair housing laws. You were mistaken.

What experience with enforcing all the conflicting laws here do you have?

I suspect that your goal is just making trouble.
I have proof!

 

[Curious George]

Imagine that... a perpetrator saying that his crime was an honest mistake.

The police and prosecutors - who I notice weren’t interviewed in that video - had the discretion not to press charges if they thought that it was just an honest misunderstanding.


Does “he says he didn’t know” necessarily imply “he didn’t know?”

I would think that the line “I didn’t know she was an underage” would be as much a cliche for sexual predators as “I was just holding it for a friend” is for drug dealers.

Statutory rape in the u.s. is strictly liability it doesn't matter if he knew or could not have known.