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
"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions."
James Madison, Federalist Papers
I think the author was merely trying to emphasize that the government is taking the property from an unwilling seller.
The Founders of America, in all their human imperfections, would simply march on Washington DC and arrest those judges who so violently betrayed the Constitution of this nation. This is no joke fellow Freepers, we are at that point in our nation where once again the Brittish have quartered their troops among us. What on earth will it take to reverse this plague of socialism in our nations capitol? What will it take to get people like President Bush to STOP playing politics and start LEADING THIS NATION like a man and our President? Frankly, I don't think Bush has the wabos to do it, he's in bed with the rest of them and he knows it, just like his pappy was and his grandpappy was. And now what are we looking at in the next election, Hillary Clinton? Or dear God above we implore you, deliver this nation from the hands of communism. It's time to start calling it what it is and stop apologising for it, it's flat out communism.
In this case, I don't believe they cited international law, but I believe the author is referring to the recent death penalty case were that was the primary focus of the Court.
>
> ... Insteads they got a 'hands off' by Fed Gov...
>
i can only assume your whole post is sarcasm, either that or you're a socialist posing in the clothes of democracy.
I don't think they would be disheartened. They would be FURIOUS.
They would be plotting and scheming and planning how to take their country back.
That's the difference between them and today's Americans.
This year it's our Fifth Amendment Property Rights that was decimated by this abhorrent freedom sucking gang of black robes.
What's next...second amendment???
Is it any wonder these black robed theives plot to destroy our Great and Glorious Constitution?
Heck, the bastard terrorist scum at least have a right to pray and possess their religious book...we Americans are forced to settle for a Constitution that has been tortured and abused by these elitist wealthy non-elected self-annoited monarchs that are paid by the very people that they are stealing our God given rights.
Perhaps, Ruth Nazi Ginsbergs home should be first on the list of confiscated homes for the public good. I wonder how she'd like that.
I can't do better than thoughtomator's tagline
Brilliant remark.
Do you oppose property rights in outer space?
I wonder how many Freepers are going to support this ruling. I can think of several who I can imagine coming up with justifications for this type of action.
Bill
Exactly. Where's Osama Obama on this? Too busy fillibustering I guess. Too busy with the game playing
Mass murder? We're all indians.
BINGO! It's amazing that you've said this, because the instant that I heard the SCOTUS ruling, I thought the same thing........that without skipping a beat, the Republican Party should instantly begin banging the drums about the necessity for a constitutional amendment to turn such an anti-American abomination around.
I hope someone smart in the party leadership is reading Free Republic right now.
Thanks for your great comment!
Char :)
Arnold Schwarzenegger is on Leno's "Tonight Show", and stated his opinion that the SCOTUS decision is both wrong and bad, and he hopes to see it overturned.
Leno commented that he thought it was "terrible" and "unAmerican"; the latest poll he had seen had 94% of Americans against the Court's decision, and he "never seen" a poll in America with results like that.
He needs to get on Free Republic.
A.A.C.
The same way campaign finance reform does; everyone except liberal USSC justices knew that was unconstitutional.
Twice I tried forming a coherent letter to my US Representative (Curt Weldon, PA-7), but I'm so angry that I just can't seem to write anything that's both polite and gets the message across. Saying I'm "outraged", "incensed", or "furious" doesn't scratch the surface. How does one tell one's representative that one now considers the people in power in this country on a par with blood enemies? How do you tell your congressman that they are threatening one of the very few things in life actually worth losing one's life over? How do you tell him that his silence on the issue hints at quiet support, and expect him to actually read the thing?
In the end I didn't write anything. Congress has been utterly silent on the issue. I think they don't give a rat's behind about anything but keeping their backsides planted in the same cushy chairs. If there was a Libertarian candidate in my district who would propose an amendment to the US Constitution to correct this, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Armed federal agents should toss those robed tyrants onto the the curb so construction can begin.
Emminent domain can now be used to seize any private real estate for sale to the highest bidder so long as the government believes it will recieve higher royalties from the new owners than from previous owners. Two of the dissenting justices played Devil's Advocate to this, helping to define the extent of the ruling. Only justice Thomas said the Court was essentially out-of-order ruling on rights specifically protected by the Constitution.
The underlying cause of the American Revolution wasn't simply taxation without representation. Representation merely provided one means of redressing grievances. A much greater cause was the widespread public anger at the actions of Royally-appointed magistrates and tax collectors. After all they were the ones who were tarred-and-feathered.
High taxes and corruption in Colonial America hindered economic growth. High taxes and corruption in contemporary America will end economic growth. Why invest in an economy where ownership is not protected? This goes for American companies as well as property. The stock market, real estate, banks and their financiers will all suffer from this.
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.