Appily wed password protect download#

That reading would be a mistake: this article is intended to jolt the reader into requiring and articulating from South African jurisprudence far greater conceptual clarity of what we mean by ‘property’ under the property clause, section 25 of the Constitution.

The title of this article may suggest to some that it is an anti-property critique. This is especially concerning in a context in which land and resource inequality in South Africa pivots off property in which livelihoods are marginalised through property’s shadow and in which the legitimacy of the property clause remains an issue given the epistemicide of indigenous land and resource governance systems and knowledge enacted through colonisation. I conclude by arguing that the failure to provide sufficient scope and clarity to the meaning of property hinders the ability of the property clause to enact reform. Because it becomes so easy to tie an interest to property, the clause is put to work defending interests not envisaged at its inception. Second, in condoning an entrenchment of existing interests that cling to the property clause to resist legislative reform, the Court’s approach has the potential to stultify the legislative regulation of property and interests deemed to be ‘property’. However, due to the wide berth accorded by the Court to the definition and scope of constitutional property, the transformative nature of the property clause remains largely underexplored. Through an historical reading of the making of section 25, and a comparison with section 28 of the Interim Constitution, I argue that the property clause holds a transformative purpose. First, in failing to articulate why an entitlement should enjoy constitutional protection, the Court moves the jurisprudence of section 25, the property clause, away from the purpose of the clause. This lack of precision leads to a ‘wide-open-gates’ policy that has two negative consequences. In its section-25 jurisprudence the Court either skims over the meaning of the word, or it treats the entitlement as self-evident. I also urge the Court to provide more deliberate and substantive reasons for the grounds on which entitlements before the Court should enjoy constitutional protection. We reserve the right to change or terminate the terms of this offer at any time and in any manner, without prior notice.In this article, I call for greater clarity on the meaning of constitutional property in the Constitutional Court’s section-25 jurisprudence. Both the original price and discounted price will be shown on the mobile receipt located in the History tab in your ValeroPay+ app.

This offer is applied automatically and will discount the price paid by $0.20 per gallon. This offer is limited to a single Fuel Purchase per user account and by the maximum amount allowed by dispenser authorization limits. A Fuel Purchase for the purpose of this offer is defined as a purchase of fuel from any participating Valero, Diamond Shamrock, Beacon, or Shamrock branded retail location (each, a Branded Location) in the US using an electronic form of payment through the ValeroPay+ app on your mobile device. This offer does not apply to non-fuel purchases.

Appily wed password protect download#

Save 20¢ per gallon on your next Fuel Purchase for existing ValeroPay+ users, or, for new users when you download the ValeroPay+ app, enable mobile payment, and make your first Fuel Purchase using the ValeroPay+ app from through.