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
Interesting days ahead, to say the least. :o(
What stumps me is that the first was cheered by many FReepers, but the second not at all. Why is unlimited federal government power better than unlimited local government power?
Call, write, fax your state and local representatives -- that's where this begins. My local state senator is going to propose a bill in the Pennsylvania senate limiting eminent domain. And he's a dem! Gotta start there, since the local folks are the people actually doing the stealing.
It's NOT all about the judges -- it's much worse. It's our own elected state and local officials stealing our land and fighting for the right to do so in court. The judges enable them -- but the first thing to do is to throw the local elected thieves out of office.
CFR AND this property thievery is initiated and pushed by the legislative branch -- that's where the problem begins. The executive branch and the judicial branch then collude. But don't lay this all at the feet of the judges and let the legislators who passed CFR, or the city councils and mayors who steal property, off the hook. Throw the b^stards out of office -- by recall if necessary!
It's called a 'bloodless coup.'
In this case, abolishing judicial review would have only allowed the elected city council in New London, your town and my town, steal the property more quickly.
In this case, the fact that judges got to review the case wasn't the problem -- the problem is that they blatantly failed to follow the Constitution.
I didn't catch the spelling error, but check out the first paragraph - "Sieze against your will..." Is their any other way to sieze anything?
Does anyone have a link to the opinion?
I agree with you. BUT, if the elected thieves knew the judges would NOT enable them....
IOW, the usual suspects.
Which International Law did they cite?
Did you notice O'Connor's Naderesque dissent?
The communist minded liberals deal another death blow to our rights and liberties written into our Constitution.
How do we go about impeaching the black robed monsters?
You're quite an idiot aren't you?
...Where are our elected officials in this?...
Clapping and applauding the decision out of site somewhere? I wonder.
site do not = sight.
It is time to call for the removal of these justices from office. They have violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Statist confiscation of property by the government is some warmed over goulash of feudalistic and Marxist governments. This completes the takeover by the corrupt oligarchy who now buy favor from the political establishment and abuse their power. I'm sure George Soros is happy about his investments in the corrupt socialist institutions.
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.