Skip to comments.Eminent Domain Amendment
Posted on 12/06/2005 1:01:46 AM PST by mukraker
As you know, on June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court made a startling ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London (docket #04-108). In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution in such a way that now anyones private property can be taken by a government body and given to a private developer, in an effort to increase the governments tax base.
The 5th Amendment reads in part ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensa. The Court ruled 5-4 that the public use requirement of the 5th Amendment would be met as long as the increased tax base from the new development would result in greater tax revenue to the local government.
Because this ruling puts ALL private property in the United States in jeopardy of being seized, it is now necessary to amend our United States Constitution, in an attempt to limit this broad new power that has been granted local governments. To that end, the following is proposed:
Eminent Domain Amendment To The United States Constitution
No Private Property acquired for Public Use shall be sold, given, leased, rented or otherwise conveyed to any non-Public entity without written permission of the private property owner from whom the property was acquired for public use. If said former private property owner is deceased, the written permission of all current heirs must be acquired.
If you ever hope to be secure in your private property rights, an amendment like this one is needed now.
But such a move to amend the Constitution must begin at the grass roots level. No career politician will support such an amendment without broad popular support.
This will be a long process. But the sooner we begin, the sooner our private property rights will be restored.
Our court system has proven it cannot be relied upon to ensure that our private property rights are protected. It will take a Constitutional amendment to force the courts to uphold what once was thought to be a guaranteed right to private property ownership in America.
Most people seem to have this misconception that when they purchase a home or any given piece of property, that after the purchase price has been met; they automatically own that said piece of property or parcel of land. When in actuality all they have is a paid lease from the government to occupy. Don't believe me ?, try not paying property taxes more than 2 years and watch what happens.
i'm behind you 110%. but i think war would be quicker, but thats probably just me.
1- an unaccountable Judiciary.
2- whose life is it, anyway? Yours, or someone else's?
3- whose Country is it?
There are other vital issues, of course- but these three will determine just who we really are as a nation.
I'm with you. The Declaration of Independence spells out our rights and duties.
OR you can form a tax-exempt organization (charity, church, educational institution, etc), go through all that paperwork to obtain an official recognition of exempt status from the IRS, then transfer the property to that tax-exempt organization.
But it's usually just easier to pay the taxes....
First off, that will never be added to the Constitution/Bill of Rights.... Second, thats kind of odd. How about 'No land shall be acquired by eminant domain for non-public use'.
Another misconception people have is that they think it is alright to build any size or shape of construction on their property without permits. Another bad idea is to accumulate hordes of junk, vehicles, rubbish and unkept yards. Other examples of misconcieved rights of property ownership include the right to host all night parties, playing loud music, owning more than 2 dogs without a permit, drilling for your own Oil & Natural Gas ! - LOL - (had to throw that in there), digging too china in your own Mine, digging your own pond, burying wetlands located on properties, building your house underground and the list goes on..........The amount of Rights any one person or persons have in any given piece of property is directly proportional to the size of the general population. More people, less Rights.
That's what we have now, and it didn't stop New London from seizing the Kelo property. The problem is in the word "public use." A local government acquires private property for what they say is a public use, but then, once they own the property, they can sell it to a private developer. In real estate it's known as a flip.
It'd get my vote.
Thats why Ted Turner bought up Montana, he wants to secede and form the one-man nation! Buffalonia!!
Of course it's always good to be sitting well with the government. What part of my tag line are you having trouble with / is it the (sad) or the (true) part ?
Its that we all are our own governments!!! I think it would work extraordinarily well myself.
That was a great piece of work I must say. But you neglected to account how the segregated liberals were going to pay for all their programs without conservatives doing the work. Ya see, thats the beauty of the form of government we have now. What we have now is conservatives doing the work to pay the taxes the liberals need to impose on us. If we didn't have liberals imposing the taxes, who would ?. It's a nasty job but somebody has to do it !
Why pass another constitutional amendment that the black-robed thieves will ignore?
We can take several steps to fix this out-of-control court -
1) to honor the foresight of the founders, impeach and hang the five Marxist thieves who gave us Kelo
2) don't give taxpayer money to states that use Kelo
3) appoint judges who can read and understand plain English
4) ignore rulings that are offensive to constitutional individual rights
I've always wondered about why the Constitution didn't give any mechanism for secessions....
That was my point, they are imperialists
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.