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.”
###
We have now had the Court's "campaign finance" rationale for perverting the First Amendment. We have seen the so-called Commerce Clause abused to the extent where bedrock principles of Federalism are casually nullified. Now property rights have become mere local convenience.
Colorado has enacted a Taxpayers Bill of Rights. But since words do not mean what they say, and statutes do not say what they mean, our "legal minds" are as free to ignore and discard this document as they have the original Bill of Rights. (When was the last time any precedent cited, say, the Tenth Amendment? Anyone guess why?) In truth, the plain will of our Founders, expressed over centuries in America's rich heritage, has been co-opted by arrogant, insular, bands of ideologues, who no more have popular interests at heart than they have understanding of anything outside their self-indulgent fantasy-world of sophist expertise.
You want a Constitutional Amendment? Retain an honest and well-intentioned Third Branch by abolishing the Supreme Court as presently constituted, replacing it with a form of jury-system advised but not dominated by pro tempore legal authorities unable to cavalierly slash-and-burn judicial landscapes. Dangerous, you say?-- what we have now has proven itself far more so, and now that these dynamics have built up, you can bet our malfeasant little Courtiers are just getting started.
Davis, of course, is only an example. This odious process could be used thoughout the entire state. Every California property owner now has a large target on his or her back. That's why it's so important to elect senators who, unlike Boxer and Finestein, will vote to break the DemonRats' filibusters.
This decision by the SCOTUS crosses party lines. Even the dims in CA don't want their homes to be taken arbitrarily.
McClintock for President '08.
"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."
How?
McClintock, a name I'm going to remember from now on. It's about time someone stood up for the Constitution against the robed crackheads in our courts.
http://defiantzero.blogspot.com/
Will this have to be fought on a state by state amendment?
WHY NOT!! They are citing items that are truly unconstitutional. Impeach all five of them!
Essentially, you're renting your property from the government presently.
IANAL - I hope not.
Apparently, now we're squatting.
-PJ
http://www.tommcclintock.com/
Stop. I'm salivating.....
They, the SCOTUS, continue to erode our Constitution. It is therefore up to the States to take it back for the country.
I won't do that again.
Can't believe this made it to the Supremes in the first place--9th Circuit decision no doubt?
Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown
I don't get what a municipality would have to sue the state over if the constitution contains property protections.
Isn't he the one who wanted to run against Gray????
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.