Says it all.
Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
OMG. This is just one of the reasons why I can't watch them. Very bad for my blood pressure. You're stronger than I.
This is the end. There is nothing left to say. I'm leaving the place asap. Malta, here I come! Anyone else wanna go?
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
_________________________________________________________
It is well within man's power to alienate and take that gift of Freedom and other men's rights away.
It said RIGHT, not POWER. Just because I have the power to do something doesn't make it right.
The Constitution is the document that created the new govm't.
The Constitution, did create the federalized government, but in law, it is a positive (man-made) contract between the ENTITIES known as states and the entity known as the federal government.
The only legitimate purpose of govm't is to protect rights and protect Freedom.
VERY heartily agree!
The Bill of rights limited the extent, scope and reach of the gov. created.
The Bill of Rights enumerated the positive law rights of the people.
Take the second Amendment, for example.
It not only acknowledges the peoples natural law right to self defense, it ALSO gives us a positive law right to a SPECIFIC means to do so...*arms*.
The founders only recognized, to a limited extent, Natural Law. They are not it's authors and Natural Law is not written down, nor was it ever enforced.
The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasoning is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
________________________________________________________
To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind.
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
________________________________________________________
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
________________________________________________________
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
-------------
Christianity is part of the Common, or Natural Law. Therefore it is Christianity that is the basis of our government. Religion of any other type is not synonymous with the American experience of Liberty!"
-------------
God . . . is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.
Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.
________________________________________________________
[T]he laws of nature . . . of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government.
John Quincy Adams
________________________________________________________
The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
___________________________________________________________________
It now means folks living in the mannor, can pick their rulers from a pot of authoritarian lords.
(sigh)
If your happy and you know it, rattle your chains!
It still amazes me that even the libs at DU know this is a bad decision!
To all the Liberals out there, I want you to remember this. Your guys tooks sides with the corporation and the conservatives took the side of the little guy on this issue. So much for all that BS. Ok now I'm done.
Eewwwww! Hey, I never thought I'd see some of the things I've seen regarding gov't, but nothing is impossible apparently : (
LOL
same to you...
honestly if the government comes and gets my land, all .30 acres of it, the world is in a serious world of hurt LOL
WHAT?!?!??
No question. Powerful interests will not want to see this power curtailed. But citizens in other states have fought the battle and won.
Another option would be start pushing hard for a federal constitutional amendment to close off this loophole.
All of these efforts are worthy efforts. Citizens need to care enough to get involved in a REAL WAY. I see more conservatives than liberals getting involved because of this, and I see some liberals becoming conservatives.
Much good of a kind and quality not desired by liberals may come of this.
They're only upset, because they see the takings going to "business". Had the takings included govm't takeover of the business, they'd wholeheartedly support it. They're just upset, because the theft was limited in scope.
Public corporations like PBS broadcasting would have to demonstrate the necessity for a piece of property that could not be fulfilled by a different available property.
"PS. And might I add that the instability of your formulation is most clearly evidenced by your conflating of rulings that upheld legislative actions (e.g., Plessy v Ferguson) with rulings that struck down legislative actions (e.g., Lawrence v Texas)."
I do think that this introduces any instability in my argument. I am focused on who has the ultimate power. In the United States, it is the Supreme Court that has the power to strike down legislative action, but also to ratify legislative action and thereby make it stable law. The statute passed by the legislature in America is only provisional. It is the Supreme Court's approval or rejection of this statute which makes it law.
Voir the example of the ban of the partial birth abortion in America. The US Congress passed such a statute, but the country looked immediately to the courts to instantly injunct the statute until the judiciary could decide whether or not that statute would in fact become a law in America or not.
What made segregation a law in America, all in spite of three post Civil War Amendments and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1973, was the decision of the Supreme Court in Plessy to disregard the three constitutional amendments and two congressional statutes in favor of state statutes allowing for the segregation of black people. So the lesser legislature in the state was elevated to supremacy over the meaning and intent of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1873, because the final, supreme source of American law, the Supreme Court of the United States, decided that, in its bonne opinion, that segregation by the state legislatures' statutes should override the Constitution and Congress.
We may be focused on different things.
I focus not on the intricacies of American judicial process and its intendant internal fictions, but where the ultimate power resides.
Whether the Supreme Court upholds a legislative action or strikes it down is to me not really the point. The point is that it is the Supreme Court that has to power to say to Congress "Good boy" or "Bad boy", and that Congress and the President obey the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court's decisions, except in the case of Presidents Lincoln and Jackson, have never themselves been struck down by either Congress nor the US President, nor by the states.
Laws have been changed in reaction to the Supreme Court, but this is not the same thing, because those laws too are then reviewed by the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court ultimately deciding to accept or reject them. The Supreme Court can, and does, strike down acts of Congress and of the President. The last time any act of the Supreme Court was directly struck down (as opposed to being accepted but then legislated around, with the Supreme Court holding the final judgment over such successor legislation) was by President Lincoln's simple and direct nullification of Supreme Court habeas corpus orders during the Civil War.
I am looking at power, and it is clear to me that if one branch of government not only makes laws, but routinely and systematically strikes down acts of all other branches of government, while itself is never, ever directly overruled nor struck down, ever, even once in 150 years, that branch of government holds supreme power in the land.
In America, the supreme power, by my straightforward standard of analysis, is concentrated in the aptly named Supreme Court.
What you have said is interesting, because I had not thought about it from the perspective of that being in fact ratified, albeit silently, by the US democracy. But I suppose this is true. Americans accept that the Supreme Court is the supreme element of their government. The minority, which seems to include an awful lot of people I talk with, think that this is an excess of power. But the majority of Americans apparently think that this is the American Constitutional structure, and want to keep it that way.
Am I incorrect?
ARTICLE 10. The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.
PPS. I was just thinking that you'd be on much stronger grounds if you focus on the Supreme Court rulings that involve religion and some of the criminal justice decisions. You'll have a much, much better argument that the Supreme Court is trampling the will of the people.
Good luck getting that to happen.
What a HORRIBLE decision. Now, everyone on this Forum should understand why we need to achieve a solid conservative majority on the SCOTUS.
Says it all.
A land development corporation might be more appropriate if they are considering a project involving land development.
This ruling is truly unbelievable.
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.