Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
But that didn't answer the question of 'Where are they'
Government doesn't have the authority to MAKE law for the people, only the PEOPLE do via Constitutional Ammendment.
Giving government the authority to make/change law via statute (or decision in this case), is giving a few in government the power to change EVERTHING on a whim.
________________________________________________________________________
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.
Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow.
James Madison Federalist No. 62, 1788
The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Hunter
"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority."
~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787~
You people around here just don't get it.
In 50 years or so, when America's population growth (all from immigration) has us bursting at the seams . . .
They will seize your country home because the land will be needed for crops, natural resources, or wildlife.
And you all will be herded into efficient population centers: cities.
Nothing can save us now except reducing run-away population growth from immigration.
Accommodating all those people is why they will seize your homes.
You only rent that property from the government now. You live there at their pleasure.
Let me know when and where.
And power goes to power.
And the rich get richer.
And I was ENTIRELY correct about CFR. It did NOTHING to stop free speech or limit electorial participation. Few laws have proven to be less effective in accomplishing its goals. Why do you think they are whining about needing a NEW law already? LOL
Just ask JFK about it. He was destroyed by the Swifties. As I stated all along ONLY idiots would have their style crimped by this law and not one thing has surfaced to cast even the slightest doubt on my prediction.
One reason I post is to try and limit the tendency to panic over every imaginable thing which runs rampant here. Another is to laugh at those who do so. Few things are more amusing.
But the main reason for which I contribute monthly is that this place provides the best source of news and analysis available. Now that analysis comes from only a limited number of posters: the ones who do not jump to conclusions, panic without cause, or try and fit every occurence within an ideological straightjacket.
"I'm dealing with another multibillion dollar corporation trying to pull the same damn thing of bypassing negotiations by running to the courts to take my property well below the fair market value. Why should they receive special considerations from the courts to trample over the owners of property they want?"
Why?
It is a good question.
Because the American system is structured to give the US courts the final decision on all issues, that is why.
The problem in the United States - and this has been seen since slavery, racial segregation, political protest limits, confiscations, abortion, gay marriage, taxation for schools, and now this decision on the taking of one man's land to give to a wealthier man - is the system set up by the US Constitution itself. The final source of power and decision in America is a court, in every single case, without exception. There is no exception to this rule.
In your US history, you have had President Lincoln, who used the occasion of the Civil War to establish a Presidential override of the Supreme Court, but this policy did not survive him.
So, in the United States, the final source of power is a court.
Contrast this with France, or all other Western European governments with a Parliament.
There must always be one final arbiter of everything, who cannot be overturned and overruled. We all know this.
Who shall that be?
The American Constitutional system has decided that it will be judges, appointed for life and immune from politics.
The French Constitutional system has decided that it will be Parliament, elected by the people, removable by the people in regular elections.
Thus, courts in America are the ultimate arm of political control.
Courts in France have no power to review the law at all. No court in France, not even the constitutional court, has any power whatsoever to strike down an existing law of Parliament. The Constitutional Court can find a law to be unconstitutional before it is passed, and so advise Parliament, the President and the people. But if Parliament passes the law anyway, then that is the law, and every judge in the land shall enforce that law, because the judge is nothing but the mouth who pronounces the words of the law, and the law is established solely and exclusively by the Parliament, elected by and answerable to the people.
In America, the Supreme Court holds supreme and final power.
In France, the Parliament holds supreme and final power.
It is unsurprising, therefore, that there is much greater political anger in America at the laws themselves than there is in France or other Parliamentary countries in Europe. In France the law may be bad, but it most certainly does represent the will of the majority of the People.
In America, the most important laws are NEVER decided by the people, nor by the US Congress. They are all decided by the Supreme Court, and the will of the people in America cannot override the Supreme Court, nor remove them from power.
The American Constitution is DESIGNED this way, or at any rate that is how it has been practiced in the US since 1800.
French law is often stupid. The 35 hour work week, for example. But if that proves intolerable and unpopular, it will be voted out as quickly as it came in. By contrast, no law ever becomes law that the people massively oppose. Parliament is answerable to the People, and bad laws cause changes of power in Parliament and the end of the politicians who passed them, along with the end of the bad laws.
The bad laws in America - and there are so many laws that the majority of Americans seem to be angry about all the time - are all made by the Supreme Court. Which cannot be overridden nor answered.
The sum total of this is a trememdous political anger and frustration in America which does not have a parallel in France or Britain.
People are always grousing about something everywhere, but in the US the law seems to be considerably different from what the Americans would have the law be if they were the final deciders of the law through their Congress.
They are not.
In America, the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the most powerful institution in the land. Many Americans seem to not like the results, but they seem to do nothing to change the Constitutional structure to eliminate that final authority from the Supreme Court and place it elsewhere.
A Frenchman would say that Congress ought to be the ultimate repository of power, but perhaps the Americans would prefer that the Presidency should be. (In France, in a true national emergency, Art. XVI of the Constitution allows the President of the Republic to assume plenary powers. Americans might prefer a Presidential system over a Parliamentary one.)
At any rate, today's ruling, and the discussion here, tells me two things:
(1) Americans are very unhappy, often, with the results of the constitutional structure, and
(2) Americans do not want to change their constitutional structure. They would prefer, rather, that the courts simply rule their way. Of course this hope is naive.
The only way the people can be sure to control the laws is by having the final power vested in a body they directly elect.
The American response is: "What about the tyranny of the majority?"
The answer to that is first that an elective republic with periodic parliamentary elections and two chambers of government limits the excesses of immediate popular passions.
The second answer is that final authority means tyranny can always appear somewhere, and the tyranny of the majority, expressed democratically through an elected Parliament which can be changed if the majority repents is preferable than a tyranny of an unelected and lifelong aristocracy, answerable to nobody and nothing.
In France, there could be a tyranny of the majority through Parliament. The 35 hour work week is the most egregious recent example.
In America, there is often tyranny of the ultimate authority through the Supreme Court. Today's ruling, or the abortion ruling, or the ruling that allowed for segregation to proceed: these are examples of that. More are forthcoming.
The only way to stop the sort of thing that happened today is to change the fundamental constitution of the United States and vest the final power of decision elsewhere, preferably in Congress. Under the present US Constitution, all power is finally vested in the courts. This has never worked all that well in America, and it manifestly does not work now, judging by how unhappy Americans are with their laws all the time.
But to change the constitutional structure is to touch something sacred in the American mind. This is unlikely.
Instead, there will almost certainly be more vain hopes that, somehow, the right collection of Archons can be placed in supreme authority, on the Federal Bench, and that they will use their power the way the people want.
It has never happened that way.
And when one contemplates the vain hope that it will, one can only think of Einstein's dictum that insanity is repeating the same experiment over and over hoping for different results.
You are right. We are merely little scurrying ants to be brushed aside as the government wishes.
And now, with the AMA Statement that takes the right to life away from Americans by their decree, what do we have left but death.
Mark, need your help on this, frater... what can we do?
Private freepmail following
You are not safe, sittin.
Since 'they' really prefer we all live in cities,and don't
drive and use up gas, I see even more reason to make
nature preserves, wetlands, etc. For the benefit of
future generations, just like making national parks.
You are correct. For almost 100 years, my family owned about 40 acres in Cobb County, Georgia in EAST Cobb, now probably the most desirable address in Metro Atlanta outside of Butthead. Homes regularly go 3/4 to a million on what they build now. Cobb officials noticed this early on and started a covert campaign to price the independent landowners (i.e., not part of sub divisions) out of existence with property tax increases via revaluations.
What I'm saying is that when my grandfather bought it, it was "in the country" and Atlanta was so far away, one couldn't conceive it would get like that. We don't that land anymore, and the houses that sit on it now average $1M apiece; Cobb county all the happier because they reap increased tax revenues.
I'm not arguing, but I will say that rural governments typically have more desire and "need" to increase their tax base than cities. But it's safe to say they'll all be licking their chops today.
In the states where I work, it is merely defined as "blighted" areas, where this sort of action is taken. With so loose a definition, local redevelopment boards are going to error on the side of development -- the purpose for which they sit -- and fore go the secondary protective nature of their duty.
These sort of encroachments into Property Rights are as old as society itself. Forrest McDonald makes the point in discussing how the framers viewed it by looking at their accepted source of law on this: Common Law. He cited how Blackstone stated the absolute prescriptive nature of private property and other property and then pointed out that Blackstone had then proceeded to outline 250 instances where such absolute rights were abridged for the good of society and individuals and how these were carefully developed and accepted legal instances.
As long back as herders have had rights and restrictions to access to water and travel to market, these diminution have been carefully restricted, but yet carefully allowed.
Our problem now is not that eminent domain exists in a limited sense, but that such limited sense is not restricted by responsible representatives elected to legislatures.
Agreed.....although we've always tried to do repsonses within 3 days of receipt (due to Reg.Z....three day right to rescind a contract). Since most notices are sent regular mail anyone can wait a couple extra days, then in the reponse letter just put in a date that's 2-3 days prior to the date of your letter.
I did this to an attorney one time and I included language that said....."I don't know who you are, I don't why you have contacted me, I don't know your venue and jurisdiction. If you think you are representing me,you are fired! If you can prove your jurisdcition in this matter, please send it to me under PENALTY OF PERJURY and I will happy to comply with your demand."
Never heard from the sucker again......why?....because I rejected the offer of contract "with honor" and within 3days plus I forced himto prove his jurisdiction/authority in the matter UNDER PEN.OFPERJURY (which he cannot and will not do)and I fired his ass on top of it.
no kidding. He's a statist joke. justshutupandbanhimalready!
WOW.
Now I see why there's a renewed effort to ban flag burning. If this kind of sh*t keeps up, I'll be buying a cotton one.
It more than stinks. It gives governments the license to steal anything they in order to further "socialism" of our society.
Hopefully there will be some brave Americans that use the 2nd Amendment to enforce their Constitutional rights to private property ownership against government entities that try to make hay on this disaster of a Supreme Court decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.