Posted on 06/24/2005 2:54:11 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 vote continued its unrelenting thrashing of the Constitution. The Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that local governments may seize private homes, businesses, or land against the owner's will and then re-sell the property to another private owner. No real "public use" is required; the government need only allege that the new owner will generate more taxes. Thus, if the government thinks that a convenience store, hotel, apartment building or business will result in more taxes, they can force you out and compel you to sell your home. That's the verdict of five unelected liberals - in black robes who obviously haven't read Constitution in years.
The Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property unless it is for "public use" and "just compensation" is paid. The Founders believed these two checks on the government's power to take private property were critical to preventing its abuse. Historically, the government could require private landowners to sell their property to the government for things like schools, libraries, and roads. But now the government can force you against your will to sell them your land simply because they want it. They can now justify this abuse simply by alleging the new owner will likely pay more taxes than you pay. This is stunning!
This is what happens when liberals rule on your constitutional rights. To them, the document has no inherent meaning - it means whatever they want it to mean. When they say, "It is a living, breathing document," that is code for, "It is a meaningless document and five of us can change it whenever and however we want."
The five liberals on the Supreme Court have once again taken off their judicial robes, violated their oath of office, trashed the Constitution, and abused their power to unilaterally rewrite or amend the Constitution. Government now can take all private property for essentially whatever reason its wants. Next time some well-healed developer thinks he'd like to build himself a bigger house on your property and you won't sell it to him, he can just ask the city council - with whom he plays golf and to whose campaign he contributes - to force you sell your home to him. So much for liberals caring about the "little guy."
The Court's majority opinion blathered and bloviated for more than twenty pages ineptly arguing that seeking more taxes is a "public use" as intended in the Constitution. This, of course, turns the Fifth Amendment on its head and makes the term "public use" completely meaningless. Public use was once a limit on government's ability to seize your property. Now, anything qualifies a public use. Thus, it is no longer a real check on government abuse. The Court essentially amended the Constitution by removing the public use requirement - and they did it with only five votes.
Sadly, the Court's decision and other recent decisions make it clear that the Court now gives scant attention to the Constitution itself and instead prefers to discuss and rely upon foreign law, treaties to which the United States is not a party, public opinion polls, and earlier court decisions. But the actual text of the Constitution receives scant attention. The historical context and the intention of the Founders receives even less.
In a stinging dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor correctly states, "[A]ll private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner.... [T]he Court ... wash[es] out any distinction between private and public use of property - and effectively [deletes] the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Justice Thomas, also dissenting, wrote, "I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution..." Justice Thomas is absolutely correct. The Supreme Court has no legitimate power to eliminate our enumerated constitutional rights. But five justices did precisely that and violated their oath of office.
If this most recent decision doesn't highlight the need for the President of the United States to appoint judges who will strictly uphold and faithfully interpret the Constitution, nothing will.
George Landrith, President
Frontiers of Freedom
Virginia Office:
P.O. Box 69
Oakton, Virginia 22124
Ph. 703-246-0110 - Fax 703-246-0129
Capitol Hill Office:
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 2100
Washington, D.C. 20003
Comments: george@ff.org
Beg to differ. I am well aware of CFR's negative affect on the freedom of speech.
Which is just one of the reasons I wrote, "and the other 2/3 [speech and religion] are under constant, vicious attack from the judiciary."
I don't like the ruling and believe it is a bad turn of events for municipal governments to take property for private development, but.....
It has been the way of America for a very long time, at least 150 years.
The railroads aquired all their right ow ways by the eminent domain process and they were very private corporations. The same is true for the electric power companies. The process has great precedent.
Called my senators Cornyn and Hutchinson and got a hold of message machines. Nicely told them of my concerns with absolutely no expectation that they will hear from me or care to hear from me.
It is the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to oversee the Judiciary. It is past time to bring impeachment proceedings against those who flagrantly violate their oath to the Constitution.
Tnx for the reality check. I have trouble recognizing sarcasm in spite of the vast weight of that phrastic on this forum.
I don't think our founded would be "disheartened"... I think they would be outraged and looking for 5 lengths of rope and the nearest tree
I don't think our founders would be "disheartened"... I think they would be outraged and looking for 5 lengths of rope and the nearest tree
I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.
I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.
FMCDH(BITS)
"Cultural Marxism" is all that this is about and he nailed that years ago.
www.warroom.com BUMP.
FMCDH(BITS)
Well-healed? Can't anyone spell anymore?
Homophone difficulties aside, it's a good column.
Founders would be "disheartened?"
I think they would be kicking arse and taking names.
Or
locking up and throwing away the key.
Or something with more punch than whining disheartedly on Oprah.
The justices who voted for this (and who trashed the Constitution) are: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
The Justices who dissented (and upheld the Constitution) are: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006862
Char
The south was wrong, the states suck, more power to the Federal Government!
Not.
So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it's now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.
These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the "strict constructionist" he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy.
"It is past time to bring impeachment proceedings against those who flagrantly violate their oath to the Constitution."
Bwahahaha.....fat chance!! We the Sheeple can stomp and yell all we want, but the elites in washington don't give a sh*t.
Man, you know it.
Quinn nailed it big time right in the beginning of the show, too. First the government taxes and regulates businesses to a point that the economy in cities die and no tax revenue can come in, and now they're going to allow our homes to be taken to "fix" that problem.
The Marxists who engineered and guided this over the decades have done their jobs well.
"...and as the rest of the Nation is still sleeping, we'll be bidding America good-bye."
........which brings me to an uncomfortable feeling that I've had for about a year now, and which I actually articulated yesterday on another thread.
I think that we could be heading for Civil War II in America, although I can't visualize how it might be fought. For instance, how would our massive military handle a true outbreak of civil war? Which episode would constitute the "firing on Ft. Sumter" which would be the trigger to conflict?
Char
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.