Posted on 06/23/2005 8:06:55 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Everybody knows about the shot that was heard around the world as the birthing pains of this once great nation. Today, sadly, we may have heard it's death knell.
It did not come with violence or shots fired. It came with the virtual elimination of personal property rights.
Our founding fathers knew how important the ownership of property was and sought to protect the right to be secure in the ownership of property to the extent that they enshrined the guarantee that property would not be taken for public use without due process and just compensation.
For over 200 years it was understood that "public use" meant that the ownership would transfer from the private owner to the local, state, or federal government for things such as military bases, roads, schools, prisons, etc. Now, the meaning of "public use" has been altered by 5 people who were never elected to office and in all reality, are completely unaccountable to anyone, to mean privately owned condos, shopping centers, and business parks under the thin guise that those enterprises would contribute more tax money to the coffers, thus increasing the "public good"
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority said that judges should give city councils and state legislatures "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," he added. To make sure that he wasn't misunderstood he added, "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," and just destroyed any pretence that you have any recourse whatsoever if the government or county decides that they want your property for any reason at all.
Sandra Day O'Connor writing a scathing dissent correctly said that now rich and politically land developers and businesses could basically take your land away from you with the help from the local government. Yes, you could fight it in court, but it is now fruitless as you are guaranteed to lose in a fixed fight.
For years the people have for the most party sat quietly as the government stole more and more freedoms from us. Prior to 1914 and fool could take any drug he or she wanted and kill themselves, thus increasing the quality of the gene pool for the rest of us. Before 1918, the government had no claim to your wages and could not tax them. Prior to 1934, Sears sold machine guns from their catalog and nobody thought anything about it. Prior to the 1950's preachers could freely endorse or denigrate any political candidate they wanted, just as had been done since the very first town government was formed in this country almost 350 years prior. Since 1986 it has been illegal to manufacture and sell a machine gun to a civilian despite the fact that in the past several decades the number of people int he US murdered by a person with a machine gun has been exactly one, and the person doing the shooting was a police officer using a gun issued to the police department.
But hope is not lost however, ownership of real property does a funny thing to people. It is a spot that a person can say, "This land is MINE!" with a dedication and a fierceness that is somewhat scary. Religion and politics and abortion and the WOT all take a back seat when two neighbors are faced with having their property stolen by the government.
Maybe that bell sounding isn't the death knell but the alarm.
Maybe this will awake the sheeple to realize that the socialist have gone too far.
Maybe the bell is just signalling round two of the Revolutionary War.
Will this war be fought with bullets or ballots?
We shall see.
The Supremes decision is merely a reallocation of wealth.
If home depot (or anyone else) wants my land for 10% of their store, I want 10% of the gross, not some lowball sum and an eviction notice.
The dodge here is that they want the location but do not want to pay fair market value for the property. What is "Fair market value"?
Whatever I can get.
If something like this were coming my way, I'd do my damndest to sell to a competitor of whoever is putting the squeeze on me, just to screw them.
In a perfect world, the Headlines this morning would read, US Congress announces Impeachment Proceedings to start immediately against the 5 Black Robed Scoundrels. The WH backs this move in full faith and credit. In a perfect world. Blackbird.
I agree. I feel a Boston Tea Party is in the making. The DUers are just as upset with this as we are. The American people are completely behind us. We need to do something.
From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and
armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
Tench Coxe
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Edward Abbey
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.
Benjamin Franklin
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
Noah Webster
Rights don't defend themselves. People have only those rights they are willing and able to unite to defend, with armed force if necessary. If you don't defend others when their rights are violated, don't expect anyone to defend yours, and those rights will be violated if they are not defended.
Jon Roland
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
Barry Goldwater
Only nine out of ten? It's unamimous in mine! Blackbird.
Applause
The difference now, it's no longer negotiable. Blackbird.
Seems a good time to quote Wm. Pitt. Not their Wm. Pitt...
The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Golf course? How about a shooting range?
I disagree. We may have simply heard the first shot in the coming battle. Perhaps a new nation will be born. The process of birth is always a painful one.
We shall see.
Signed! I would urge you to post that link on every thread you visit on FR until Congress acts. Blackbird.
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that IF the three branches of the government are co-equal, then the other two have no obligation to obey the judges.
Done.
"This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." --Abraham Lincoln
Five. The other four were as furius as we are.
Excellent idea.
As I understand it, this ruling does NOT exempt government land. Why not band together, obtain financing, and through eminent domain take the land on which the Supreme Court sits and build an amusement park?
No, not in my eyes, should I sit on a jury. Here's the catch though, he could very likely be determined by the State to be a TERRORIST, ferreted away to some secret location and never heard from again. Does this scenario make the Patriot Act any more onerous to those who are clamouring for it? I don't own tin foil, this is the reality of such power in the hands of tyrants. Blackbird.
Keep your powder dry.
Yes, it will get people killed. The first will probably be the poor bastard who has to try to physically evict a crotchety old fart who just refuses to leave. The second will be the old fart for daring to stand up to the almighty government to protect what he now no longer has a right to.
The first to die ought to be the city councilmen and women who were bribed to take his land and the second ought to be the tyrants in black robes who allowed it.
As I understand it, this ruling does NOT exempt government land. Why not band together, obtain financing, and through eminent domain take the land on which the Supreme Court sits and build an amusement park?
---
I'm sure they would find some 'technicality' to prevent us form doing this. Another option would just say to hell with it and torch the scotus building...
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.