Constitution and Amendments

1.There has long been a bed-rock right in the common law to sell or lease personal property “as is”, that is to say absolutely and completely without warranty of any kind. Nonetheless, the common law has never seen fit to apply the same principle to the sale or lease of real property, especially residential real property. In every contract lease for residential real property, there exists an imposed and implied Warranty of Habitability, even where the parties have not specifically contracted for such. Is this an unwarranted limitation of contract law or is this a valid imposition of the law for a modern society? 2.The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (that’s right, 1866, not 1966) made it a violation of federal law to discriminate because of race in the selling, leasing or buying of real property. This act went so far as to include ALL real property, public and private, including (specifically) residential property owners who wished to lease a unit as small as a single room even in the private owner’s personal residence. This act could not have been clearer in its language, intent, purpose and scope, yet it was immediately deemed unenforceable by its critics and was generally considered a failed statute and not enforced. This lead to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which the observant reader would recognize as simply a modern redrafting of the 1866 legislation. This act has been deemed spectacularly successful. Why the difference between success of the statutes? Is it possible to write good legislation that is simply too far ahead of its time and therefore unenforceable? On the whole, should the law lead society by dragging the leash or wait until society has made clear that it is willing to comply? 3.The Due Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives specific powers to the government (state or federal) to take real property of private U.S. citizens, if doing so is clearly done for a government purpose. This power is called eminent domain. The only limitation of this power is that if a government chooses to do so, it must provide just compensation to the property’s private owner. Please note there is no requirement for the government to prove that its purpose is a “good” or “worthy” purpose. Constitutional law critics have often argued that the constitution should be modified (easier said than done) to include this requirement. Do you agree or disagree? Support your argument and your conclusions.