Posted on 02/12/2002 12:01:34 AM PST by usadave
Eminent Domain in Anaheim: "Citizens' property bulldozed by ruling"
In "Razing homes for schools" (News, Feb. 2), the Register reported on the Anaheim City School District's plans to raze homes if its $111 million bond measure passes in March. Proposition 39 lowered the threshold for government plunder, so the measure is likely to pass.
Anyone who pretends illegal immigration is not a problem ought to take a close look. The single biggest factor in Anaheim's school overcrowding condition is illegal immigration. What's about to happen in Anaheim will have profound effects on the liberty and property rights of all.
Foul No. 1: If the bond measure passes, all law-abiding citizens and resident aliens within the district's boundaries will have to surrender some of their earnings in the form of property taxes to build more classrooms to accommodate the children of illegal aliens. Foul No. 2: If the district proceeds with eminent domain, it will usurp the property rights of citizens and resident aliens to expropriate their land under the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to accommodate the children of illegal aliens.
In other words, all of the people of Anaheim will have to give up part of their earnings and some will have to give up all of their land because of illegal immigration. This is totally unjust.
Once again we are paying for the judicial overreach of Judge Marianna Pfaelzer in her ruling against Proposition 187.
Pfaelzer based her ruling on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth's framers made it clear in their proceedings that the equal protection clause pertained only to the natural rights of life, liberty and property, not to social and political rights. They specifically said equal protection did not apply to suffrage and education.
Further, Prop. 187 was completely consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution. St. George Tucker illustrated that in two essays, "View of the Constitution of the United States," and "Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England." Tucker studied law under Declaration signer George Wyeth at the College of William and Mary and was a colleague and kindred spirit of Jefferson and Madison.
Tucker argues that while the Constitution specifically enumerates the power of naturalization to the federal government, matters related to immigration are neither enumerated to the national government nor excepted to the states, and are thus retained by the states. The national government was given the power of naturalization because each state was required to confer on citizens from other states the same rights as its own.
Thus citizenship requirements had to be uniform. But the social and political rights of aliens did not, so states retained those rights.
In "View" Tucker wrote, "[the federal constitution] declares that congress shall have the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; .. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization (admitting aliens for residence), being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states."
The states, then, hold not only the rights to immigration into their own state, but also control over which social and political rights they would confer on immigrants. He said, "Consequently, an alien before he is completely naturalized, may be capable of holding lands in one state, but not of holding them in any other."
He spoke similarly of the right to hold office under the authority of a particular state. Tucker was fond of a quote from Francis Bacon: "As exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in cases not enumerated." As the Constitution neither excepts from the states, nor enumerates to the national government, the power over the social rights of illegal immigrants, that right is retained by the people of California under the Tenth Amendment.
Thus, Prop. 187 was the just prerogative of we, the people of California. That the U.S. Constitution was torn asunder by a judge for the purpose of social engineering is unjust.
When unarmed invaders can cause our own government to take bread out of the mouths of the children of lawful citizens and resident aliens, and to unceremoniously throw the law-abiding off their own land, our liberty and property rights have been savaged and our republic is in jeopardy.
Until we have political leaders with the intestinal fortitude to appeal Judge Pfaelzer's unjust ruling, or until we go back to the ballot box with another Prop. 187-like initiative, the only power not usurped from the people is to vote "No!" on Anaheim's bond measure, and all others like it.
BTTT
The day will come when ownership of single family homes will be frowned upon as selfish use of land that might otherwise be used for multi-family dwellings or to grow crops to feed the starving children.
First they will raise property taxes to discourage single family homes, then they will confiscate such homes under eminent domain, moving all fomer homeowners to population centers where they can be maintained more efficiently.
Politicians will not protect Americans from this because they want the votes, and they pander to their big business political donors who want slave labor. I am going to send this article by snail mail, along with my comments, to every politician in California and demand an answer.
Those of you in other states, please take notice. This is coming to your town soon.
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.