Posted on 06/23/2005 1:54:47 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
McClintock to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights
“Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.”
“The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens. I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”
###
Love Tom McClintock.
America needs him as President. We need a REAL Conservative.
Perhaps Arnolds win in California was America's Gain.
Draft Tom in 2008!
McClintock is just trying to score some political points. This decision is the best thing to happen for his career in a long time.
----
I hope you're as suspicious of all politicians words and actions.
Welcome to FR, newbie.
We need Constitutionalist judges now!
-----
Moreso than most realize. The socialists have been targeting the judiciary as their tool for absolute power and control, and so far, they are winning the battles -- McCain-Feingold (which Bush should have put in the trash can) and now this -- based on this disasterous precendent, any government can basically take your real and personal property at will.
Toto, are we in the Soviet Union yet??
It would only be fitting if Justice Kennedy's property was targeted for a shopping mall.
Please...where do we sign?
It does. What has happened in this case is that many citizens, including the conservative minority of the Supreme Court, believe the liberal Supreme Court majority has so broadly interpreted that power that it has now become the means whereby government may forcefully evict a disfavored and less powerful private citizen and give his home and land to a favored, powerful private citizen simply because government thinks the favored, powerful private citizen has a better idea how to make a private profit on the property.
Many people sense a line has been crossed that should have remained sacrosanct.
Probably VERY INCIDENTAL to your point, but I must correct what apparently is a mis-impression on your part, or may be mis-interpreted by others...
"High crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a felony or other "high-level" crime. The meaning of the phrase is A crime committed by a HIGH LEVEL OFFICIAL, not the level of the crime. --- Or stated another way, "a crime or misdemeanor committed by a high level public official".
It's weak, but good luck. It is more important to feel good than to be effective.
Even though they would pay fair market value and even moving costs, what happens to this elderly couple as a vested Prop 13 tax payer on the new property? The exemption goes entirely away, right? Time for another "Tax Revolt" against the Supreme Stupids!!! (if you ask me... which, of course no one will, right?)
Impeach the 5 Supreme Court Commies!!! Seize their lifetime jobs!!! Don't let 'em help local CA local governments defeat Prop 13 without a fight!!!
Yes! And we shoulda impeached Earl Warren before things got this out of hand!!! He started all this crappola!!!
"Do you think the liberals on the court would have felt the same way if it had been WALMART that wanted to take people's homes?"
"The People need to take their country back from the thieves in DC."
With respect, I think you are right, but just how will that ever happen? The ballot box? Has not done much good lately.
Horse hockey!!! We could all be dead by then!!!
As I understand it, the homes that the government wanted to seize were river front homes. Not exactly a blighted area. Just imagine what good the government in Kaleefornia can do now with all those fabulous oceanfront homes owned by people like Barbara Streisand. Oh joy, the wonderful TAX producing, JOBS producing projects the government could create by seizing all the homes of the wealthy. HEE HEE HEE
ARTICLE 1. (New Section Adopted by the people 11/5/1974)
SECTION 1. (Inalienable Rights)
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
James Madison on Property
29 March 1792
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
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.