--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
Posted on 07/06/2005 7:05:20 AM PDT by Jay Madham
Supreme Court Strikes Fatal Blow to Rights June 30, 2005 To the Editor: On June 23, 2005, four liberal-socialist U.S. Supreme Court justices — John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — joined by Anthony Kennedy, struck what may be a fatal blow to one of the three fundamental human rights upon which our Republic is founded, that of private property. Enlightenment thinker John Locke’s three fundamental rights of every human being — to life, liberty and property — were adopted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution is based on these three fundamental rights, including the right to ownership of private property, with the exception that in the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution allows governments to take private property for necessary public use — for example to create or widen public roads, with the words “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This new Supreme Court decision, in Kelo v. City of New London, allows governments to force the sale of private property for private use as well, not just public use, meaning that local, state and federal governments can now force owners to sell their property for “just compensation” if, for example, a private firm such as Wal-Mart, or an insurance company or a drug company wants to use people’s privately owned land for the erection of their businesses which would potentially employ people or provide useful services to the community, and if the involved government agrees. The Constitution has truly been subverted by this decision, and the potential for graft and corruption is huge. Imagine land developers, huge corporations, the rich, and others who want to seize private property, contributing heavily to election campaigns, in return for promises to cause the machinery of government to force the sale of private property for their own, for-profit, private use. Imagine the potential for graft — politicians and other government officials illegally lining their own pockets with money, low-cost mortgages, and low-cost loans arranged by developers and corporations by using insider information; for instance buying up adjacent property at low prices and selling at higher prices to developers, corporations and the rich at the right time. Imagine the potential illegal payoffs to local, state, or federal government officials in return for favorable government decisions that force the sale of private property for corporate private use. Those who say that this is a matter for each state to deal with, insofar as private property rights are provided for in each state constitution, are wrong. The right to private property is a fundamental right of all humans, enshrined in the federal Constitution of 1787, as subsequently amended 27 times, that protects us all equally as citizens of the United States, including our right to own private property unless needed by the community for necessary public, not private, use. The majority decision was only 5-4, and the dissenting justices, Sandra Day O’Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote compelling arguments in support of our Constitution and private property rights. Clarence Thomas was especially mindful of the adverse effect on minorities, the poor and the elderly, and all the dissenters noted that the majority decision favored those with “disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” When these people leave the court, unless they are replaced with equally determined guardians of the Constitution, we might as well kiss our Republic good-bye, for the other two fundamental human rights, to life and liberty, are sure to follow.
Linus Downes 14808 Harvest Court, Centreville, VA Published in the Centreview, a Connection Newspaper serving Chantilly and Centreville VA, July 1, 2005 http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/printarticle.asp?article=52712
I predict that this type of "eminent domain" property seizure will lose its appeal to government officials the first time someone takes the law into their own hands and defends their property themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to prosecute some "eminent domain" on congress.
I think they have some pension funds that would be great for "public benefit" we could start with that.
Now,for private gain, cities all across the United States can make private landowners offers they cannot refuse.
Where is RICO when we need it Mr. Attorney General?
"I predict that this type of "eminent domain" property seizure will lose its appeal to government officials the first time someone takes the law into their own hands and defends their property themselves."
Please understand that the guy driving the dozer doesn't stand to make a dime off the theft of your property.
It's not hard to figure out who will.
Credit where credit is due. Otherwise your efforts are wasted. The developers and the officials in their pocket don't care any more about that dozer operator than they do about you.
Make sure your efforts count.
. . . With every admissible subdivision of the Arable lands, a populousness not greater than that of England or France, will reduce the holders to a Minority. And whenever the Majority shall be without landed or other equivalent property and without the means or hope of acquiring it, what is to secure the rights of property against the danger from an equality and universality of suffrage, vesting compleat power over property in hands without a share in it: not to speak of a danger in the mean time from a dependence of an increasing number on the wealth of a few? . . .
Bump. Thanks for this post.
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 Consitution" 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 ciritcal of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme ct. decisons when they were both on that ct. and he has been quoted as being sharply crticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
There is no freedom, without private property rights.
Private property rights; rights of citizens to define their own future, is what our Revolution was based on!
WE MUST remove all Democrats from the Senate. We must get conservative judges on our courts. The liberal judges are the enemy of our republic. We must get some sane voices in the Judiciary. We MUST DEMAND representation in the judiciary. Write op ed pieces for your newspaper; picket; write the representatives; join the republican party and be active. CARE about your loss of freedom. FIGHT FOR IT!!!
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.