Posted on 09/12/2006 1:56:42 AM PDT by goldstategop
The city of Cooper City, Fla., has given itself the power to seize residents' personal property in times of emergency.
Officials deemed this new law necessary because of what is expected to be a busy hurricane season.
But don't worry, they say. The law would never be enforced unless there were no other options – presumably meaning that the city could not persuade private citizens to permit the government to borrow, rent or buy their equipment.
Think of it as eminent domain for generators, power tools, trucks and anything else local czars determine they need.
Not surprisingly, this plan has met with some resistance.
''These people, with their mindset, should be arrested and put in jail for even attempting to do something like this,'' said Tim Wilder, a mobile mechanic who owns emergency tools and equipment.
While Commissioner Elliot Kleiman acknowledged that such a law is subject to abuse, he explained, ''but it's not going to happen here.''
Wouldn't that make you feel better?
You see, tyrants and dictators always believe they will be benevolent – that they would do the right thing in all circumstances. Few people run for office or seek power believing they cannot be trusted. They almost all trust themselves.
However, if we could trust people in power, we wouldn't need the safeguards we have in America to keep them in check, to limit their authority, to restrict their actions, to maintain the rule of law rather than the rule of men.
What's happening in Cooper City is not unusual. Unfortunately it is happening all over the country. It's happening in local governments. It's happening n state governments. And it's happening at the federal level.
That's why this is worth talking about – worth thinking about, worth praying about and worth fighting with all of our American resolve for independence and liberty and individual freedom.
It's easy for government to respect civil rights in the best of times. The challenge is for government to respect them in the worst of times. And few rights are as foundational as property rights.
That's why I agree with Mr. Wilder. That's the theory behind our rights. But what about the pragmatic implications of seizure laws like this? Are they really effective? Or are they, in fact, counterproductive to saving lives and property in times of emergency?
Think about this.
The best emergency scenario is that people themselves are prepared. Even the most well-equipped, efficient, resourceful and powerful government in the world can't take care of everyone's needs in an emergency.
Does a law like the one approved in Cooper City encourage people to prepare for emergencies? Or does it discourage them?
Most of the adamant objections to the law come from people who are prepared – people who make preparedness a way of life, people who even make a living investing in and operating emergency equipment.
Are these not the very people we need during times of emergency? Isn't it better to encourage people to do just what these folks are doing? Isn't it better for all concerned if we don't discourage people from making those investments and maintaining those businesses? Would any city or state want to drive these people out of their jurisdictions by raising fears of confiscation of their property and livelihoods?
Furthermore, why would other private citizens knowingly invest their own dollars and cents in preparing when city officials are giving them the impression that their neighbor's equipment will be seized by government to rescue them?
It's just one more example of a law that makes people more dependent on government – never a good idea in times of emergency.
You want to hear the real kicker? The Cooper City law, as with so many others like it, would allow officials to prohibit possession of firearms in times of emergency and close any public gathering place.
There go the First and Second Amendments as well as the Third, Fourth and Fifth in one fell swoop.
Is there any point in owning anything any more? Or, maybe a better question would be: Does anyone, besides government, really own anything any more?
And be sure and keep your Hummer H2 hidden in your garage.
Well then I can just take a quote from your homepage:
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
My copy of the U.S. Constitution doesn't have an emergency clause.
Hasn't that already been settled after what NOLA did?
Ruling Seen As 'Landmark' Victory for New Orleans Gun Owners
Not doubting that.
It might be like a lot of other ordinances in a lot of other places: a foregone conclusion where it wouldn't matter if 1000 complained.
The bigger question is does the state really have the right to do this? Should they? The article quotes one state guy saying to the effect that the state should have this right to "render services". You can do a lot of harm using that terminology.
Read the full article and the first 20 of 117 comments posted. One person, who replied twice defended the new law; the rest did not.
Any law is based on a contract between the law maker and the group whom the law is/will be imposed upon. It must assume reasonable actions on both parties. Unfortunately, that basic assumption appears to be failing nation-wide. See Kellog vs. New London. See the various “big box” laws that have been passed.
The “law” is supposed to be neutral. It was neutral. Laws like this proves it is no longer neutral. It now depends on the “rational” act of a group of politicians.
How far can it go? Suggest you read American History 1942. In particular the history of California. To give you page and paragraph - the internment of natural borne Americans and seizure of their personal property by the American Government in the name of National Security. The lawyer that interned American citizens becauseof their race (no other American racial group was so treated)was Earl Warren (sp?) who became a member of the Supreme Court and headed the official investigation of Jack Kennedy’s assignation.
It took us 40 plus years to repay, at 1941 prices, what was taken by the State and Federal Governments in the name of National Security. PLEASE, do not assume that politicians in 2005 are any better than politicians in 1941- the human race and body politic don’t evolve that fast!
I believe that the British did the same thing during the Revolutionary War. I'm pretty sure that this won't pass Constitutional muster.
"confiscated property would be returned after 30 days......."
words are very cheap. think of the effort it would take to remove those words
and never have anyone even dare to utter them again. (one gets the feeling
that the people who founded the U.S. might be having a difficult time in the
hereafter)
Don't get your panties in a wad. The purpose of the law is to permit government agencies to use resources available--such as that generator in the hardware store, whose owner has evacuated and can't be reached for permission. This happened repeatedly in Gulfport and Biloxi--needed resources in intact retail establishments couldn't be legally used because the owners "just weren't there"--so the cops, firefighters, and other emergency workers broke in an used them anyway.
It wouldn't apply to your personal generator used to power your refrigerators.
Now, the part about confiscating personal firearms IS illegal (proven by court cases in New Orleans).
Legalized looting, but only for the State, of course.
""--so the cops, firefighters, and other emergency workers broke in an used them anyway."
Does the Cooper City law limit the seizure of property to closed retail establishments?
Your "don't worry" attitude would be right at home in the Cooper City council.
This should be stated over and over and over and over...
Exploitation of eminent domain is not going without challenge. Many states are passing laws protecting property as we speak--inspired by the New London and Justice Souter. A jury found for an abused property owner in Greenville, SC just last year in a very important case where the city seized the riverfront property of a citizen, only to turn it over to a private developer. The city lost...huge.
Private property is an illusion.
1. Property taxes are progressive confiscation of your home, a small percent at a time.
2. Business taxes: The government gets a cut of your receipts without doing any work.
3. Income taxes: created to redistribute money.
"The purpose of the law is to permit government agencies to use resources available--such as that generator in the hardware store, whose owner has evacuated and can't be reached for permission. This happened repeatedly in Gulfport and Biloxi--needed resources in intact retail establishments couldn't be legally used because the owners "just weren't there"--so the cops, firefighters, and other emergency workers broke in an used them anyway."
Yeah...I can recognize the intent and it all sounds so reasonable and cuddly.
Not having read the actual ordinance in question, I should simply defer to all that reasonableness.
Unless it actually prohibits taking personal generators as I described or even one's home for some perceived good/better use is problematical.
Along with any potential gun seizures. Take the guns, taking the property becomes a lot easier.
I have a liberal friend who is always laughing at those bumper stickers that read, "I love my country, but I don't trust my government."
Somehow I think this law might wake him up. At least, if it was applied to his generator.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS:
Bonfire for the Constitution
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/eobf6-97.html
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.