THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Nealz Nuze ^ | June 24, 2005 | Neal Boortz

[Alberta's Child]

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision was only part of the problem, and in fact the decision has effectively obscured the issue that brought the case before the court in the first place. The laws in the state of Connecticut that permit this kind of outrageous seizure of land by the government are the real problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision doesn't apply to states where this abuse of eminent domain is prohibited by law.

[kjenerette]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter(1) or to abolish(2) it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- excerpt from The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Note1: The 1st Amendment provides the means to ALTER the Government
Note2: The 2nd Amendment provides the means to ABOLISH the Government �

[coloradan]

You mean, Mrs. "We're going to take things away from you for the public good"?

[clamper1797]

It bears repeating ...

I don't care if I get banned from this site or not at this point, this needs saying. It's high time we as a people stood up to this tyranny going on in Washington DC. If we don't do it now and get it under control and put this Government back in it's box, violently if necessary, then we will lose every ounce of freedom we ever had.

[The Great RJ]

My liberal wife was also incensed by this decision, but she blamed the conservatives on the court for once again "selling out to big business". I delicately reminded her that the most conservative members of the court voted in the minority. Perhaps liberals might now see why we need a conservative SCOTUS.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Interesting. Thank you for your reply.

[NCC-1701]

"...I'd like to see the homes of the justices be bulldozed, but we all know that ain't going to happen...."

Why stop there. The land that the Supreme Court building sits on could fetch a pretty penny if bigger money-maker could set up shop there. BTW, does the Supreme Court actually produce revenue from its operation like, say, Federal Express? If not, crank up the dozers, lower their blades, and go to work.

[Conservatrix]

Exactly.
Communist Manifesto Chapter 1!!!!!

[yoe]

Is there a list (I probably over looked it) of the Justices who voted on this? If the Justices broke Constitutional law by scraping the Fifth Amendment, are they still the last arbiter? Or can the citizens demand they be over ruled?

If we at Free Republic can stay focused on this issue; get a petition started with the help of Jim Robinson and keep it in place, we might at least be able to start a ground swell of opposition and get some legal help.

[jaydubya2]

Lets build a rendering plant on the private properties of Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens!

[musanon]

I simply want to know what the heck they plan to do to protect my rights.

"We, the people, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln

---

Strangely enough, it may take another Lincoln like President to resolve this mess by defying the USSC.

The President could issue a 'finding' that public takings for private gain are against basic Constitutional principles that protect individual human rights.

He could then authorize the Justice Dept make available public defenders to citizens facing such infringements by state or local authorities misusing their power.

This protection would allow local juries to defend the property rights of their peers, just as the Constitution intended.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Another stupid, anti-American, Judiciary legislated law from the Supreme Court(aka decision) that will stand as the law of the land, until or if we can confirm enough gutsy and non-activist judges to reverse this asinine ruling. It's either that or a Constitutional amendment........dream on.

[Leatherneck_MT]

They can not only be overruled by the Congress, but they can be impeached.

They NEED to be impeached. I'll see if I can find a list of the judges and how they voted.

[kjenerette]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article I. - The Legislative Branch - Section 9(16) - Limits on Congress
Constitution of the Confederate States of America - 11March1861

[glorgau]

many of us will have to emigrate and find a new America. Comments?

The battle should be fought here.

[Protagoras]

It will be judicial tyranny that brings this country down. Every day brings another nail in the coffin for our Constitution.

Not really. Three constitutional amendments have been repealed since Bush took over. Not to say that Bush himself is the only guilty party.

The executive branch pushed for the end of the forth amendment, and got it. The legislative branch pushed for the repeal of the first amendment, and got it. Now the judiciary has repealed the fifth. It looks pretty evenly spread to me.

[jpsb]

"Because we are a nation of cowards"

No, because we have no leaders, the soccers moms keep electing cute, idiots. But out of this mess leaders, real leaders will emerge. And then we will kick butt.

[Lazamataz]

This is the most anti-individual-liberty court in America's history.

Between upholding the CLEARLY unconstitutional CFR, invoking the commerce clause in laughably-overreaching ways, and now letting government seize land to benefit political insiders....

This ain't your daddy's USA.

[LetsRok]

Let's take all the homes in the Hamptons from the mega-wealthy and convert them to condos. We nee more tax payers up there you know. We can do the same in Malibu.

[gregwest]

For what it's worth, the Mormons in the 1830s and 1840s were repeatedly driven off their lands by governments and their militias in the states of Missouri and Illinois. In 1833, Joseph Smith was given a revelation by God regarding a Christians' obligations to obey the laws of the land. Here is a statement from that revelation:

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (Source: Doctrine and Covenants 98:5-10)

In 1835, Mormon founder Joseph Smith published a declaration of belief regarding governments and laws excerpted below:

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

"We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." (Source: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134)

I thought those quotations were particularly relevant to this topic. The statement that "no government can exist in peace" unless rights to freedom of conscience and control of individual property bodes ill for the Republic. Inasmuch as the government twists the Constitution to advance socialism, the blessings of peace will ultimately be withdrawn from our nation.