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.”
###
And a lovely group it is, too. In league with a wealthy group of Orange County RINOs (the "New Majority"), the CAGOP is now nothing more than a Big Tent crammed full of RINOs/Liberals/Moderates, with conservatives dumped over the side, and supported by the White House and national GOP. They won't get another dime from me.
Say calcowgirl could you put me on that ping list? Everytime I hear McClintock interviewed on talk radio, my respect for him grows. Like Carry_Okie I don't agree 100% with him, but I DO agree with him more than any other state politician, in any of the various states I have lived in.
Tom wouldn't kiss their @ss#s.
They have committed a crime-against the Constitution of the United States of America.
intruding on private property rights violates the u.s. constitution and is communist or fascist.
Keep me on the list. Tom McClintock is the most honorable elected official of our time.
BUMP BUMP BUMP
gettin' toasty down here! :-]
you know what I mean...
good behavior is what the rules say.
A bad ruling doesn't equal bad behavior, nor should it. And it certainly doesn't to those that can remove a member of the SCOTUS.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that judges shall hold their offices during "good behaviour." Depends on whether or not you define ignoring stare decis and the fundamental principles of legal interpretation as bad behavior or not. It seems evident to me that this ruling constitutes bad behavior.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
>>Say calcowgirl could you put me on that ping list?
Done!
it might to me too. I havent read the entire decision yet. My opinion really doesn't matter that much in this case and neither does yours. Incidentally, we are not in the HoR or the Senate.
but AS I SAID, you don't want to be able to remove a justice because of a ruling. Think of what that could cause, if/when there is another Liberal Democrat in the WH. It will happen again.
No, but we should be able to impeach them for being non-constructionists. The very acceptance of the "living document" point of view is a violation of a SC Justices duty to defend the constitution.
All this would take is a very strong conservative majority in the House and Senate. Give us 10 more years...
Of course not. I will do everything in my power to prevent Walmart from taking my house. Just off the top of my head, I might do some of the following: organize the neighbors to picket, use the local media to raise hell, and find all kind of legal delay tactics to make Walmart uncomfortable enough to leave us alone.
Of course, there are certain things that I might do that I cannot post here. Just be aware that I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
And if you have any other ideas, please let me know. If there is petition to be signed asking the US Congress to correct this decision with federal legislation, I will be there to sign.
My US Congresswoman and my US Senators will hear from me.
I wish we had him instead of Arnold
I see even more sinister possibilities for this ruling. At the least, it gives developers who have sympathetic politicians an open hand to grab assets. At an extreme is the possibility that foreign investors, or governments, can buy front companies and operate from behind the scenes to seize property from American citizens. Again, sympathetic politicians will go along because it creates "Taxes" and "Jobs." This is a terrible ruling and I hope every Free Republic member, and all conservatives get together to back this initiative.
McClintock for President!!
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.