My exact thought too.
These robed bastards need to be taken down a notch. Or up, depending on how you look at it:
Posted on 06/28/2005 11:31:22 AM PDT by 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.
Impeaching the majority of the U.S.S.C. would cause the legal branch of our government to come to a screeching halt
Something that is now necessary. The pause should be filled with debate in the Congress as to how to bring the Judiciary back into control - By amendments, or an entire re-write of the section of the Constitution dealing with the powers of the Judiciary.
The un-Constitutional nullification of legitimate laws stemming from Marbury and the conjuring of new "rights" out of whole cloth needs to be stopped, and a check mechanism put in place which would give either the States or the Congress the power to reverse such rulings should they be made.
There's nothing to enforce in Kelo. The USSC just said that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment no longer protects private property from taking for nonpublic use. It doesn't mean the States must ignore the protections as well, just that they are not bound by it anymore.
Look at the present, or even possible after the 2006 election, membership of the Senate. Is there a snowball's chance in Hell that the Senate will vote by a 2/3rds margin to remove any Justice merely for savaging the Constitution and violating their oath of office?
If you conclude that the Senate will not vote to convict and remove any Justice on that basis, then you agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote that "the remedy of impeachment is a scare-crow." That the House might vote by a majority to impeach (or indict) means nothing if the Senate will not convict and remove.
Therefore, the only real remedy is to wait for the outlaw Justices to die, or resign for health and age problems, and see to it that they are replaced by Justices who have read the Constitution, understand it, and will obey it. There is no other remedy, absent armed rebellion per the Declaration of Independence.
John / Billybob
That is great! Bookmarking that one! (How can we get it BTTT if it's locked??!)
Post to the thread linked at the top after the word duplicate.
"Just Desserts Cafe" bump
Cornyn is wrong.
It should be illegal. Period.
Go talk to the Cubans in Florida and ask them to tell you about their homes and business that Castro seized.
Not much different in the Kelo ruling.
There will be deaths over this - political careers and physically, I'm sure.
(blushing)
Thanks.
My exact thought too.
These robed bastards need to be taken down a notch. Or up, depending on how you look at it:
I have another one - we both agree government should stay the hell away from the internet, we both agree CFR is restricted speech, etc.
Wouldn't take much to align both sides to take our government back.
Sign me up for it.
I'm serious.
If the situation were reversed, I'd encourage the Dems to impeach the justices - I'm an American first.
How about some House pressure?
This should be brought up and voted on, and all voted accounted for (no voice vote), so Americans know where Congress stands on this issue.
If the House votes to overturn this decision and write legislation to enfore our rights (I can't believe I'm even writing this!), I'd like to see the Senate try and ignore it.
I think they are going to regret that bit of legistation! People are up in arms, and I don't blame them!
Don't forget the President's speech starts about 5 minutes from now!!!
Unintended consequences....remember the 3 S's??
Powerful!
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.