Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling

Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Although the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments ruling dominated Monday's headlines, a property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base.

The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.

"It is appropriate for Congress to take action ... to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.

"This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment," Cornyn said. "Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."

Cornyn's legislation would clarify that 'public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders."

He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."

Cornyn called the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, ruling in Kelo v. City of New London an "alarming decision" that should prompt lawmakers to take action.

"The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," Cornyn said.

"In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005."

Cornyn also said the Supreme Court's Kelo decision partly vindicates those who supported the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, Cornyn said, "because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence."

Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.

In other Cornyn / Fifth Amendment and private property ownership news . .

(The many faceted images these political chameleons are able to manifest never ceases to amaze . .)

=====================================

In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders."

He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."

Cornyn called the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, ruling in Kelo v. City of New London an "alarming decision" that should prompt lawmakers to take action.

June 27, 2005

Thoughts on Whiny Atheists and SCOTUS Rulings

Filed under: Current Events, Issues, Politics — Josh @ 3:39 pm

Watching the clueless atheists speak out in regards to the SCOTUS rulings today makes me sick. The whiniest group of bastards you’ll ever come upon. And dishonest as all hell. The woman from the American Atheists (we don’t believe in God, let’s start a group celebrating our non-belief? That, in itself, is sad and says so much about these people) complained that we no longer have religious freedom because they ruled that the TX Capitol 10 Commandements monument can stay…that’s just blatant dishonest to attack the monument to begin with. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW- the monument was in NO way an act of congress, and it’s not a law in any regard. The clear fact (from the VERY clearly written amendment) is that NO legal body or legislative body has ANY right to rule on religion PERIOD. CONGRESS SHALL “MAKE NO LAW” clearly was meant to cover the judiciary as well, because the judiciary CANNOT make law. When the court rules EITHER WAY on the matter of religion, they’re violating the 1st Amendment. In their actions, they have created their own law, so they’re also violating the seperation of powers.

Atheists who have no lives and started all this nonsense to begin with REFUSE to be honest about nearly anything concerning religion…their attacks in the courts is the escalation of the fact that they have no lives and desperately need hobbies. Their actions are dishonest and shameful, but no more so than the actions of the court itself.

Comments (1)

US Supreme Court Rules Against 10 Commandments- Tosses Out the 1st Amendment

Filed under: Current Events, Politics — Josh @ 2:31 pm

The US Supreme Court HAS to be stopped. No other way around it. These rogue justices have decided THEY are the highest authority on everything we do…THEY decide what the framers meant, and most of the time they freely admit they’re making legal decisions based NOT on the Constitution.

Today, the court ruled that displaying the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is illegal, tho the 1st Amendment makes it clear that government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER (not the executive, legislative, OR judicial) to infringe on an American’s (GOD GIVEN) right to free exercise of religion. This absurd notion that the Constitution bars public displays of religion is insane. The justices who continue to rule against Americans and for a small group of whiny atheists are destroying this nation. Religious freedom (NOT freedom FROM religion as some would falsely claim) is the backbone of the country, and the founders knew this. That’s why they told us that religious liberties were God given rights, and they recognized that it was impossible for any man to take away these special rights given from God (religious freedom, life, the pursuit of happiness) and NOT from government. They realizes that they had never really given the right to religious freedom to the people- they were merely the protectors of the right they knew came from God himself.

SCOTUS today ruled against the clear intentions of the founding fathers, and they ruled that the American people aren’t truly given any permanent rights. With this ruling and many like it, the Supreme Court has made it clear that NO rights in the Constitution have any true meaning…only as far as the Supreme Court itself is concerned. Their ruling makes it clear that anything unelected, unaccountable, judges want to take away a right that is supposed to be guaranteed to all Americans, they can.

The court ruled that displaying the 10 Commandments would be divisive, tho obviously the Constitution doesn’t guarantee Americans the right to not feel left out, or feel like outsiders in a religious sense. SCOTUS constantly creates new rights THEY deem appropriate, based not on the US Constitution as ALL of their rulings should be, but their own personal opinions. It’s abuse of power at its purest, and with the judiciary it’s the most dangerous power grab of all- we can vote out our representatives, but when a judge makes rulings he or she pulls out of the sky, defying clear Constitutional guidelines, the people can do nothing about it. When a Senator abuses your rights, you have a way to remedy the situation. when a Supreme Court Justice does the same- you’re simply one more right shy of the guarantee made by the founders.

It’s 2005…SCOTUS has taken control of all of our lives, illegally and immorally breaking their truth with the American people. Violating the clear rules set out by the US Constitution, there are no limits to the what this court can do to all of us. If religious liberty is no longer a guaranteed right to all people- what’s next? What Amendment will be thrown out next time? It’s a sad day for the Constitution and especially the 1st Amendment. It’s clearly written, the founders told us religious liberty was given from God and guaranteed, to be protected by the government and the court, but the court today violated that trust, and they might never get it back. Which is why it’s also vital to pick future justices that will bend to the will of the people and to the Constitution, not their own selfish attitudes and personal opinions.

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.