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.”
###
Why wouldn't it hold up in court? Even in this outrageous deciision it was stated this is a state/local issue to be decided at that level, not the federal courts.
Whats this?.... Someone with a idea which will actually benefit the common citizens of this country. Guy must be a fluke in the system.
It would hold up in court because it's an amendment. Courts don't have the power to strike down a validly-enacted amendment (at least they havn't taken it yet).
Thanks for posting this. I had totally forgot she shrilled this. NOTE: to self REMEMBER
Agreed. Today the SC verified the fact that 'private property' is a myth in the 21st century United States of America.
The People need to take their country back from the thieves in DC.
Its a scary world with the Clinton's in charge.
Yes. IIRC, one or two have actually been thrown off the high court with convictions.
Actually, they did just that with the marriage amendment in Nebraska. A federal judge struck down an amendment to their state constitution because he said it would conflict with Federal rights (even though Federal judges have upheld the Defense of Marriage act.
Maybe the American people will now better understand what our fight with the dimRATS over the Judges is all about
-----
We certainly pray so. We do have a big problem, with the fact that so few, can destroy America for so many...
His stock just went up considerably in my book !!
Why wouldn't it hold up in court? Even in this outrageous deciision it was stated this is a state/local issue to be decided at that level, not the federal courts.
McClintock has a good head on his shoulders. He was my choice for Governor of California.
Here! Here!
GO TOM!!!! We will SUPPORT this Amendment, by doing what ever we can do!!!!!!!Americans are outraged. I believe that even some " liberals" will be outraged!!!!
Then I drop by objection. I support state constitutions which have additional limits on their state governments.
Thank you for clearing this up.
Me TOO!!!!!!!!
OK, this is what I get for making comments without considering every possible permutation. What I meant to say was that a court cannot strike down an amendment to the constitution of itw own jurisdiction. However, I can think of no reason why the federal courts would strike down an amendment like the one described. The USSC decision today was permissive, not mandatory.
Yes. They only hold office on good behavior. In the past Congress has interpreted this as meaning a Federal judge, including SCOTUS justices, can only be impeached if caught committing a felony, a standard that's more applicable to the President, who can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." "Good behavior" is a broader standard, one that ought to include deliberate violation of a justice's oath to uphold the Constitution. The trick will be persuading Congress to go along with such an idea.
No, I agree with your overall point. I don't think they would (and it basically states in the decisions that if private property is to be protected, it can be done so at the state level) but with the imperial judiciary of the present day, I wouldn't put it past them to do just that. I mean, we've gotten to the point where the Massachusetts Supreme Court told their legislature that they had to write a particular law by a particular deadline.
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.