Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling

GOPUSA ^

[Happy2BMe]

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.

[Smartass]

This story keeps getting funnier by the minute...

Check out the link
Developer seeks Souter's property

 

[Happy2BMe]

"I suppose so, but don't really know the procedure for removing a sitting federal judge."

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

In this case it is the majority of the United States Supreme Court - the oligarchy - we are concerned with.

Impeaching the majority of the U.S.S.C. would cause the legal branch of our government to come to a screeching halt.

This crisis does however prove one thing though - the oligarchy is in definite and unquestionable control of both of the other bodies of United States government.

(Do we detect an imbalance here somewhere?)

* * *

Is There A Backbone In The House?

* * *

Has the Supreme Court Shown the Hand of Authoritarian Free Enterprise?

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[Happy2BMe]

#30 - Thank you for posting that.

(Is it still worth the paper it's printed on?)

[RightWhale]

the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen

Is that an accurate paraphrase?

[Happy2BMe]

"Somebody's gonna file suit, whatever the legislation says."

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

Somebody aleady has - see #5

(Pandora's CLOSET just got opened - the U.S.S.C. saw to that . .)

[Happy2BMe]

Our sense of humor is just waking up.

Then he can rename the street to "Liberty Lane"

[Happy2BMe]

Confusion does reign, doesn't it?

I'm wondering if even Congress can decipher the gibberish coming out of this epileptic U.S.S.C.

[Smartass]

"I suppose so, but don't really know the procedure for removing a sitting federal judge."

Complaints against federal judges filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, which replaced the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C § 372(c) effective November 2, 2002.

Pitifully, they judge each each other. The fox is guarding the hen house...they know it, and flip you off. It's up to our ball-less congress to reel the courts in.

[AD from SpringBay]

It's been what, a week since the ruling? And people are still concerned about it? Something is terribly wrong with the American attention span when a decision that they can have their homes taken from them when two or three city beaurocrats sign a piece of paper still troubles us a week later. Bring back Friends, Seinfeld, and The Flintstones! We obviously need our SOMA dosage upped, or something.

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

There was talk on the other thread of a "Just Desserts Cafe".

[RightWhale]

Some of the Founding Fathers in 1787 thought it likely an oligarcy would arise, and there is no reason to believe we are not well on the way.

[Happy2BMe]

"Complaints against federal judges filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, which replaced the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C § 372(c) effective November 2, 2002."

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

Who wrote that - the U.S.S.C.?

BBbbbwwaaahHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[doug from upland]

MEMORIALIZED IN SONG --- THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND

[OKIEDOC]

You got that right.

People with guts in Boston got tired of being pushed around.

They threw tea into the river over a tax.

A lot less cumbersome than some of the crap coming out of our current court system.

Like Girls Gone Wild we could make a film The Court System and Activists ACLU Scumbag Leaning Judges Gone Wild.

[RightWhale]

Yes, there is vast confusion. A local talkshow today was kind of humorously discussing whether their wilderness homesteads had been taken yet for Disneyland North.

[flada]

Not to quibble over fine details, but it's actually the 4th Amendment that prohibits the seizing of private property. The 5th prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, without making any mention of the taking of private property for private use.

However none of this has stopped the government from taking your private property and redistributing it to other private citizens in the form of welfare and other socialist schemes. I'm equally outraged by these violations of our 4th and 5th Amendment protections--have been for many years.

[Happy2BMe]

The number of (extemporaneous and for the most part bogus) laws on our law books is numbing. Hundreds of thousands of laws and our law enforcement cannot even control something as basic as traffic speeding and our over-bloated government cannot even stop the illegal alien invasion.

It's broken.

[tumblindice]

http://www.usconstitution/net/const.html

The "liberal" justices are responsible for this decision that allows developers to take the homes of people who work for a living, but the kool-aid drinkers will continue their drum-beat that conservatives are grinding their heels into the faces of the working class, blah blah blah.
Also, you'll hear a lot about how the states should pass legislation protecting homeowners. . . won't work. All a grifting developer has to do is appeal, invoke Kelo (stare decisis) and the 14th amendment. (Then write some more checks.)
Next time a "liberal" pulls that "We're the party of the People!" bull on you, two word response: eminent domain.

[tumblindice]

practice makes perfect
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Political Junkie Too]

Not to quibble over fine details, but it's actually the 4th Amendment that prohibits the seizing of private property.

Wasn't this the basis for one of Thomas' complaints, namely, that the security of your possessions WITHIN your house is protected, but the house itself is not anymore?

-PJ