Posted on 06/30/2005 8:33:04 AM PDT by Georgia_JimD
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." – Frederick Douglass
While this June has been filled with many “one brick short of a full load” Supreme Court decisions, clearly Kelo v. New London takes the cake. As readers of this website are already acutely aware, the Supreme Court decided to disregard basic property rights in favor of powerful special interest groups. Now is time to do something about it.
On June 15, 1215 A.D., in Runnymede, England, a piece of parchment was signed called Magna Carta – a crucial document which limited the power of the monarchy and affirmed the basic rights of the people in England. This one piece of paper is perhaps the most important single influence to the Constitution of the United States.
Article 39 of Magna Carta read, “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, banished nor shall we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
The pertinent word in the sentence above is ‘disseise’, which is defined in this manner, “To put out of actual seisin or possession; to dispossess (a person) of his estates, etc., usually wrongfully or by force; to oust.”
From this, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution was derived. It reads, “[No person shall] …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
With five swift strokes of their collectivist pens, the Supreme Court overturned nearly a millennium of tradition and common law with respect to private property ownership. In Kelo v. New London, the justices decided that not only may the government apply eminent domain in order to construct government roads and buildings, but they may now boot you out of your house if Wal-Mart or the local land developer wants your property.
In so doing, they have granted special status to the feudal lords of the 21st century, namely major corporations, development companies and local government fiefdoms – reverting our system of property ownership back to the dark ages.
Our Constitution is essentially the contract between the people and our government. While the government frequently reneges on this trust, this is perhaps the most egregious case since the birth of our nation. Many are already stating that the decision in Kelo renders the contract null and void.
Henry David Thoreau wrote, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?”
In this spirit, his and our predecessors dumped tea in the Boston Harbor. Already, many are calling for civil disobedience. One man is attempting to use this decision to force Justice David Souter from his home -- so that he may establish the "The Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Café" in its place.
All of us may not have the opportunity to dispossess the Supremes of their fine homes. While humorous, some of us may even have moral qualms about the stealing part – even if it is from the enemy.
However, we have the opportunity to act in a totally moral and lawful manner in order to express our discontent. Let’s throw some serious sand into the gears of the government machine. They have asked for real property, so let us send it to them.
Real property (land) is composed primarily of dirt. The entire incident in Kelo is over who possesses a bunch of dirt.
The people in the area in which I live are proud of their soil – as is the case in most other places. Perhaps this eminent domain issue may be remedied by providing the landgrabbers a lot of dirt – enough dirt so they won’t have to steal it from the poor and the elderly again.
Radio talk show host Neal Boortz recently stated, “All property isn't dirt”. However, in this case, it is. Let’s give ’em some!
Some addresses to which you may mail your dirt are:
Dave Goebel Chief Operating Officer New London Development Corporation 165 State Street, Suite 313 New London, CT 06320
Richard M. Brown City Manager City of New London 181 State Street New London, CT 06320
Justice John Paul Stevens One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543
Justice David H. Souter One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543
Justice Stephen G. Breyer One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543
Stephen P. Gordon is a communications consultant specializing in political, public education, media relations and fundraising campaigns. He is the founder and President of Alabamians for Compassionate Use and the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama. He recently served as Communications Director for the Badnarik/Campagna 2004 campaign.
The Constitution hasn't been valid since at least 1861, so what is the big deal?
We'll probably all be speaking Chinese.
Carolyn
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.
The majority opinion is based on privacy rights and is written by Kennedy, joined by Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stephens. O'Connor concurred on equal protection grounds.
Will the judiciary in this country ever be held accountable for these illegal activities?
Well, yeah. But, we kinda want it back. You know? We are trying to do what we can when we can.
L
Doubtful. Besides, it'd be real hard proving the SC did anything illegal, when they were just doing what they're empowered to do.
" when they were just doing what they're empowered to do.
"
They are empowered to ignore the Constitution and make law as they see fit?
They ain't gonna give it back.
Any attempt at a Constitutional Convention would likely be disaster, producing some sort of horrid cross between the EU constitution and various UN Resolutions.
The last resort is Civil War and, well, we saw how the last one went...
The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution "means". Stupid system. Our ancestors were suckers to fall for it.
Yeah... but at least I wouldn't be around to see the downfall of the Country I loved.
That's the part that amuses. "Call a Constitutional Convention!". Can you imagine what sort of insanity would come out of that?
I doubt it too but, they are not empowered to do what they did. They are merely a check to keep the legislature from enacting unconstitutional laws. That's it. Period.
Coming up with a new definition of what is is, should be an impeachable offense.
I just did... all the wackiness, political correctness, and socialist BS you find in documents like the UN "Rights of the Child" and the EU Constitution. Rather than defining and limiting the powers of the State, they would try to assign rights to people (by various grievance groups, of course) and end up leaving us with no rights at all.
Amen.
The leftist bastards on the Court, in Congress and in our State Legislatures are the dangerous ENEMY WITHIN.....just as dangerous as the Islamanazi Lunatics....
Semper Fi
Every time that I've purchased topsoil, it seems to contain pigshiite. Seems to me that this is what ought to be sent.
Oh, and the percentage of the shiite is quite variable. :>)
If you jump through all of the loops, and carefully document every word uttered by both sides during the process there is always a way to get the job done.
The fine group of gentlemen we elected to represent us have provided all the tools. Whenever a group of people assemble for the purpose of harming others, the RICO statutes will most likely provide a way to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of all except the perpetrators.
Try it, you will like it. I know it worked for me! :<)
Semper Fi
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.