Posted on 07/05/2005 7:13:34 AM PDT by Visioneer
Please forgive if this has already been pointed out. It just crossed my mind that politicians who have used gerrymandering and rezoning to alter the make-up of voting districts, now has a new way to manipulate the ratio of voters. that is, a corrupt council or board of city/county supervisors who is having problems with the voting tendencies of a neighborhood, can remove all those voters and replace them with non-voters by simply re-zoning after taking the property away from the voters who reside therein...
This could be used to punish neighborhoods that do not tow the line and vote against city leaders' whims...
Just a thought...
Then again, the PC crowd can have a field day, too, appealing to "fairness' to replace houses/neighborhoods with government housing and/or Section 8 housing....
God forbid you decide to challenge the entrenched leadership - you immediately put your family's prpoerty at risk. This includes direct challanges such as running aginst the machine, or even publicly opposing their agenda.
this would be more effective than being shipped to siberia because your family would be directly punished as well.
I think this is exactly what the city council in Norwood, Ohio, near Cincinnati, did. It also would not surprise me if the City of Hamilton is doing the same thing.
yep. if you DARE buck the establishment they can now seize your home, dump you and your family in the street, and then make money on your property.
nice setup, ain't it?
The real problem with the Eminent Domain ruling is that it has no end and no limits.
And thus the 1st amendment can fall under this as well. If you paint a picture that a local offical doesn't like, he can simply take it.
One thing we as private citizens can do to reclaim our independence, at least in the case of this atrocious ruling, is ask our state legislatures to explore the possibility of restricting the applicability of eminent domain proceedings to cases where there is a true public interest as this has been historically defined--not as "the Supremes" have now redefined it. Alabama is now expected to take up this issue in the upcoming special session of the Legislature--what about your state?
This could be used to punish neighborhoods that do not tow the line and vote against city leaders' whims...
Just a thought... [GOOD THINKING!!!]
Then again, the PC crowd can have a field day, too, appealing to "fairness' to replace houses/neighborhoods with government housing and/or Section 8 housing....
***Private property ownership vs government housing...
One could always sell BEFORE they challenge the system, then as a renter, they won't be vulnerable.
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.