--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
Posted on 07/04/2005 5:47:06 AM PDT by FortRumbull
Saddle Up. This is the big one.
Good v. Evil
Kelo v. New London
As we celebrate this Independence Day, it is essential that we are cognizant of the repudiation of one of our most basic rights by the current Supreme Court. You probably missed Woodstock, the march on Selma, Dan's Bake Sale, etc. But you do not want to miss the great Kelo rally in New London on July 5th, right before the New London, CT City Council meets for the first time since the Supreme Court's decision was handed down. Meet the plaintiffs, their attorneys from the Institute for Justice and the evil New London City Councilors who plan to throw them from their homes.
The Kelo decision is one of the watershed events in the civil rights movement and shows every sign of growing much bigger before it is over. Each facet of the Bill of Rights is dependent on each of the others. Without property rights we have no freedom of speech, for example, because now the government can penalize our outspokenness by seizing our property. Protesting the Kelo decision is a struggle for all of our rights, not solely those pertaining to property. With this week's 365 to 33 condemnation of the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. House Res. 340, it looks as if we are entering one of those great showdowns made possible by the checks and balances in the Constitution. Your presence will help buck up the Congress in its fight with the Supreme Court; and to energize the Kelo plaintiffs in their 8-year long struggle for freedom.
When: 6:00PM Tues. July 5
Where: New London, CT City Hall, 181 State St. 06320
New London is easily accessible from I-95, Amtrak, Greyhound, or ferry from Long Island
Speakers and protesters are coming from a wide area of the country to stand by the Kelo plaintiffs as they stand up to the Supreme Court's theft of their homes. Let the Court and the New London City Council know what you think about property theft.
And if you need any further excuse to come to New London, it is smack in the middle of the tourist capital of New England, with an incredible number of things to see and do. World-class casinos, beautiful ocean beaches, historic sites, Mystic Seaport, Mystic Aquarium, etc., etc. See beautiful Fort Trumbull itself, along with Susette Kelo's famous pink cottage across the street. And the following weekend is New London's annual 3-day Sailfest celebration, featuring an incredible fireworks show on Sat. July 9.
Can't make it to the rally? Feel free to let New London city councilors know your thoughts.
If you won't protest when they come for our homes, you won't protest anything. See you in New London.
Excerpts from House Res. 340:
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. renders the public use provision in the Takings Clause of the fifth amendment without meaning;
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. justifies the forfeiture of a person's private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person;
Whereas the dissenting opinion upholds the historical interpretation of the takings clause and affirms that `the public use requirement imposes a more basic limitation upon government, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of another private person';
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. holds that the `standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse' and the beneficiaries of this decision are `likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms' and `the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more'; and
Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to always defend the property rights of individuals and to only execute its power of eminent domain for the good of public use and contingent upon the just compensation to the individual property owner: Now, therefore, be it
Am sorry I cannot make this.
I am there in spirit w/ y'all.
We have our own battle here in Freeport, Tx., 50 miles south of Houston.
July Fourth: Today I am celebrating with hopes for a rebirth of the American spirit for independence and inherent rights.
Fourth of July Bump for removing the toxic waste in government -- whatever it takes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me know when ya'll are going to march on city hall in Freeport. The New London of Texas.
Will Armalite have a table there? Bushmaster? Savage? Ruger? Colt? Smith&Wesson? Glock? Kimber? Remington? Winchester? Eagle Arms? Panther? Serbu? Barrett? Taurus? Beretta? Olympic? Freedom Arms?
"When Jimmah Cahtah signed the federal surface mining law in 1978, millions of land owners lost the right to develop the coal resources they owned by deed in favor of the "greater good."
High-way to robbery. Lately, I've had to revise my opinion of "Cahtah" and my revised opinion of him ain't very good.
I thought he was benignly insipid, but now I believe he is malignantly insipid.
.
It's a little tacky, it says "SCOTUS SUCKS SCROTUS" and on the back it has a tombstone with RIP Freedom (with some relevant dates).
Anyway, here's a link: SCOTUS SUCKS SCROTUS
Please post an after-action report of this rally. Can you ping me to any future rallies that may be held in New London? Thanks.
Bump. Thanks for this post. Bravo!
It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these realted issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
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.