Most disturbing to me is the apparent unconstitutionality of San Francisco dictating changes in existing leases.Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution specifically states that “No State shall … pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.†But hey, this must be the "Change We Can Believe In".

Therefore the answer is simple, as set forth in the constitution.

It's ironic how pudgy little porky's like john yoo get to draw the law on what constitutes breaking the law and what not, as he did on torture.

I spend a good bit of time studying Constitutional Law and as I mentioned earlier, teaching other people about it.

Entering the home with the approval of the court, and the assistance of the the sheriff might constitute breaking and entering, so i would not advise doing that without a judge telling you you have that right.

I want us to enforce the Constitution.

Where is that covered in the Constitution that the feds should oversee our kids' education?

The issue is whether having an interest in the property through a contract qualifies under whatever they term that ownership exception as.I am NOT an attorney, but my understanding from different attorneys and from different cases that I've studied is that a valid contract does constitute an interest in a property, and that interest can be enforced in a court of law.

Whether or not it constitutes personal liability is another issue.

Originally posted by rich23s:Not that I have to justify myself, but I've been a responsible gun owner for many years.There is never a need to justify yourself for using a Constitutional right.