Posted on 06/25/2005 9:50:56 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Fifth Amendment (or what's left of it) bump. Since the new interpretation of "public use" is anything that will bring in more taxes, I am going to build a nude night club on my property in my residential neighborhood. If my neighbors don't like it they can call (former) Jusitce Kennedy.
A bunch of laymen are reading this over my shoulder, so for them I describe the case,
A deft and considerate maneuver that escapes many a counselor. Thanks.
ww.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/BF6F99A05DEBCC0A8625702A001A1708?OpenDocument
Hope the link above works, it's a good article. Mentions a local mayor who says, "Taxes from commercial development help build roads, highways, schools and hospitals."
In other words, some taxpayers are taxed at the usual rate, and others, less fortunate, are taxed 100%, their homes confiscated and sold against their will. Sounds like unequal treatment, no?
And if a city is so run down, people leave. Why pour money into it, and seize homeowners' property? Why are city charters more sacred than deeds? When a house is fit only to be condemned, they condemn it. Let them do the same for hopelessly run-down cities. Instead of giving the remaining homes to a developer, give the city and its public holdings to the few hardy homeowners who struggle on in spite of inferior city government and services.
That might put the blame---and the penalty---where it belongs.
Kelo and the other holdouts should have seceded from the city and formed their own community, let that run through the courts for a couple of years.
Anyone for a boycott of Pfizer and every other Ephin' corporation that has directly benefitted from eminent domain?
It haunted me that the system of checks and balances is out of wack and this is what is causing the problem. The Supreme Court gained powers not originally anticipated in Marbury vs. Madison and the rest has been history as they say.
The solution is to introduce a subtle rather than a major shift, to correct this imbalance. Making the Supreme Court Justices accountable to the other branches without requiring "wrongdoing or impeachable offenses" to drive the action that establishes accountability.
I think that an Amendment should be proposed to establish a Supreme Court Veto that would require a Veto over ride vote (2/3rds) from the house and senate and signature by the President. This Supreme Veto would vacate the Supreme Court decision and the Justice writing the Majority Opinion would be removed as well (Obliged to step down). A new justice would be nominated and the reconstituted panel could chose to reconsider the case or accept an opinion written by the dissenting judges as representatives for the other branches.
This makes the person writing the majority opinion directly accountable and changes the balance on the court to force a more considered solution. This obviously would only rarely happen because the bar is so high. But, it creates a serious check to the power of the Supreme Court.
This decision will go down in infamy along with Dred Scott, and Roe v. Wade.
Thank you for your well reasoned thrashing of Justice Kennedy. I hope you will post his reply, should you receive one.
I like it. Thanks.
There is little of less interest to Justice Kennedy than a letter from a constitutionalist exposing Kennedy's errors of judgment. Now if partial namesake EMK would welcome him into the "fraternity" he would take note!
Darn good letter, but still retains an aroma of professional courtesy. More tar, more feathers please.
By the way, has a Sup Ct justice ever been pied? Where are all the civilly disobedient types hiding these days?
I concur wholeheartedly.
Now where have I heard that before?
"When policemen break the law, there isn't any law, just a fight for survival." - Billy Jack
Great post. Thanks.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
Can a big corporation take an invention from away from the inventor because he lacks the wherewithal to develop it?
Can barber A take barber B's small two chair business if he promises to create more jobs and taxes by converting it to a 4 chair barber shop?
There is one problem paragraph, though not from a legal-reasoning POV. Just grammatical:
Okay, here’s a hypothetical. What if a particular Justice is uses his/her independence to violate the Constitution? What if that violates his/her oath of office as a Justice? What if the problem is not just one case, but the entire approach that you (excuse me, the hypothetical Justice) takes to judging any case?
I've bolded the problems. The first one needs to have "is" deleted. The second has a disagreement between subject and object, I think.
Unless I misinterpreted or am wrong. ;-)
I post this grammar-nanny stuff only because it appears you are sending this to Justice Kennedy, and he might notice. Or not.
Sorry, but it won't work. Someone has to enforce the Constitution. Would you rather have the Congress decide (i.e., McCain), or this city council? Or President Clinton? If there had been a better answer than the S.Ct., I think the Framers would have found it. We have to keep trying to put good people on the Court, like Scalia and Thomas. Three more like those two would go a long way towards correcting the problem.
re:...Until Justices who do not honor their oaths of office, or the Constitution, it will be true, paraphrasing Voltaire (1764), “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe as long as the Supreme Court is in session.”
Is there something missing from this sentence after the word "Constitution"? (possibly "are replaced")
This is why I don't post grammar-nanny stuff often.
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.