punished?

  The supreme court is examining the legality of living outdoors. It centers around the homeless people in the country living on the streets and in the alleys of every major city in America. What was once called a "hobo" jungle has moved into the city. Do you have a constitutional right to simply live on the streets? It is public property after all, funded by the taxpayers. It doesn't matter if you are contributing to that tax base however, that is evident given the number of people we have living off the taxpayers. I'm not certain when we went from having vagrants to having homeless folks. Perhaps the difference is simply that vagrants moved about the country seeking shelter and a handout but didn't settle in one place. Those that did settle in one place were called squatters when they had no legal claim to occupying the property. Can you squat on public lands? I don't think so, try that in any state or national park and see what happens. Try pitching your tent in the local park and setting up camp and see what happens. But that is what the court is deciding upon.

  This has been highlighted just recently with the encampments on the college campuses. They are saying they are protestors and have every legal right to protest. They are correct, the right to peacefully protest is a constitutional guarantee. It is the first amendment to the constitution in fact. There are recognized restrictions on that as well, such as the requirement for a permit, or not blocking access to buildings, private property owners can establish rules for speech on their property. The right to form an encampment isn't directly addressed. Personally, I don't feel like I have any constitutional right to do that as it may infringe on the rights of those that do not want to protest with me. It's a two-way street. I have an absolute right to speak my mind, in a public form, on the street corner or court house green but I do not have a right to set up camp. 

 Now the supreme court is hearing arguments about a ruling in a lower court that enforcing a no camping rule violated their eight amendment rights. Their argument being if there is no alternative shelter available for the homeless it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment to prevent them from camping out. The court, from what I have read, is divided on the issue. The liberal justices tending to agree and the conservative justice dissenting. The conservative justices questioning whether the homeless people would have an alternative. The argument centers on a 1965 ruling by the court that said you can't be punished based on your status. The thinking there being you are homeless through no fault of your own. 

 That leads me to another question. Is the government obligated in any way to provide you with food, housing and healthcare? If that is the case, why can't I just refuse to go to work and have the government provide for my needs? I can't quit my job and then collect unemployment benefits. If I can't afford to pay my mortgage, why isn't the bank obligated to just let me live there anyway. Wouldn't that be cruel of them to evict me? 

 Do I have a right to demand charity? That is central to the issue. The answer is, there are no laws requiring the government to extend charity to anyone. The reason is a simple one. Why should I work for something I can get for free? And there has been, there are and there will always be those that are quite comfortable with that attitude. I'd suggest by doing so, that is to say make it a legal standard that the government provide for your needs, you would then be empowering those folks to remain in that condition. No shame in being a bum or a government leach! That's the bottom line. 

 We are a nation of laws. Laws that are supposed to be for the common good of the people. Allowing these homeless people to simply set up encampments in the streets and alleys of the cities is not in the common interest. They create a haven for crime, drug use, alcoholics and all manner of unsavory activities. Move along! That was the deal in years past. We called them hobo's and they moved from place to place, sought day work or simply begged for their needs. But somewhere along the line we began calling them homeless. Well, I'd say if you have established a campsite under the bridges or overpasses, gathered in the hundreds, you have established a home. The only question being, can you squat on public lands? Is that a constitutional guarantee? We'll have to see what the court's opinion on that is. Is it punishment?