Michigan Militia and Landowner Vow Armed Defense of Property

Grand Rapids Press ^ | 9/17/03

[11th Earl of Mar]

If I knew you were so sensitive I would have rephrased my staement to read more like this:

And if one has six or eight trailer homes to put on his one acre parcel, one should fit right in.

[AdamSelene235]

James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45

The Federalist papers are not law. They were propaganda intended to sell a carefully sabotaged Constitution to the public, a bait and switch.

It is unlikely that we would disagree with each other that the things you listed are NOT Constitutional.

No, everything I named is explicitly Constitutional and this was the very intent of the Founding Lawyers who, after all, were writing their future job descriptions.

I can not address your information about the shutting down of the news papers for the anti-Federalist views, that is the first time that I have heard of that.

Government school? Ah well, I suppose it was "neccesary and proper" or in the interests of the "general welfare".

. If we allow every word to be that elastic then we get Federal intrusion at every level. It is bizzar for the Senate to assume that they can treaty in areas where they have no authority to legislate. That is what it appeared to me that you were indicating that the Constitution was - elastic.

The words are intended to be elastic. The Founding Lawyers were smart enough to write an inelastic document but they didn't. They could have stated that troops could not be quartered without an home owner's consent PERIOD, but they didn't did they? They could have insisted on a right to a public jury trial in all cases whatsoever but no they reserved this only to cases deemed criminal by the government itself. This is why you do not receive a jury trial when you go up against the IRS.

After reading your homepage (not sure of it's official name here at the site) here at Freerepublic I am really suprised that we differ in views on this topic. Everything you stated I feel that I could also state as my position.

Weird, huh?

Look either the Constitution was designed to create the sort unlimited, unaccountable government we suffer from today OR it is powerless to prevent it.

Which is it?

[GrandEagle]

internet experts that offer their worthless advice to a area they have never been.
Yes, I agree. A bit like having children... If you want to know how to raise them, just ask someone that does not have children.

[GrandEagle]

Look either the Constitution was designed to create the sort unlimited, unaccountable government we suffer from today OR it is powerless to prevent it.
Which is it?
I contend that there is a third option that you missed. "We the people" have failed to demmand that our elected officials follow the law. We have failed at this job for well over 100 years now. That is our fault. The Constitution - that is the document itself - can't hop down from its place of display and do anything it is up to "we the people" to enforce it.
I'll agree that we have almost waited too late. But I have to go down fighting.

[AdamSelene235]

"We the people" have failed to demmand that our elected officials follow the law. We have failed at this job for well over 100 years now.

Congressmen try and impeach *themselves* there is no mechanism for the citizens to hold them accountable for abuse of office. Again, this is not a mistake. The Federal Government was specifically designed to be both extremely insulated from the public and capable of defying their wishes.

[Between the Lines]

BS!

[GrandEagle]

Congressmen try and impeach *themselves*...
We have the opportunity every 6 years to rid ourselves of Senators and every 2 years of our Representatives - the ones who control the money. One thing a politician pays attention to is reelection. The Congress can limit the Supreme Courts jurisdiction. The Congress can also remove from power any appointed official through a super majority.
I finally do see where our differences come from. It appears that you disagree with our FORM of government not just its application. To me that seems like an easy way to not assume responsibility for what it has become and just sit back and gripe.

While there are things that I would have liked to be different, I like our FORM of government and believe that it has the capability of being the greatest on earth. It is up to us. We can replace those who abuse power. We can completely change everyone in power every 6 years if we choose to.
I disagree with what we have allowed it to become but that is because we do not hold our elected representatives accountable for their actions.
Just as a curiosity what would be your solution to our present dilemma?

[AdamSelene235]

We can replace those who abuse power. We can completely change everyone in power every 6 years if we choose to.

The mechanism is democratic and will only lead to more entitlements, class war, bread, circuses, guns, butter, and free drugs for granny.

Just as a curiosity what would be your solution to our present dilemma?

A government limited to solely the defense of life, liberty and property. Oh, there are things you could dream about doing with the current system, for instance, an amendment stating "If you receive a government check, you lose your ability to vote". Naturally these sort of fixes are not viable in a mobocracy.

[xrp]

Dear Newbie,

Here's your cluecheck: The 1st Amendment regarding free speech states that CONGRESS may not enact a law that would restrict your free speech. A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION which you sign a contract with can! If I were to go to work for someone, then I start bad mouthing him in front of his customers, do you think I would be fired or could I sue him for "violating my free speech" rights?

If he wants to fly the American flag he can, he just needs to move first. I personally think that anyone who makes a long-term home in an area with a Homeowner's Association is pretty stupid in the first place.

[xrp]

When the law is wrong it's wrong and when the government cannot be convinced to remove said law then civil disobediance is the ONLY choice.

Thanks for making my point. Civil disobedience was against the government, not someone whom they had entered into a contract with. Tell you what, refuse to pay your mortgage and then try civil disobedience when the bank comes to seize your house. The bank seizing the house might be morally WRONG, but you entered into a contract agreeing to abide by certain rules and the bank has the right to evict you if you fail to abide by your contract.

[xrp]

Are you saying that there are NOT such times?

That's up to each individual, but you should be prepared to pay the consequences. If I get a ticket for driving 75 in a 55, I pay the consequences. If this guy wants to not abide by the HoA's guidelines which he agreed to when he signed on the dotted line, then he should cough up the money that he is being fined.

[xrp]

Now here's a fellow disputing the permit process limiting his constitutional right to use his property as he sees fit

By buying the property in that particular area and agreeing to the terms of the Homeowner's Association, he is indeed not allowed to universally use his property as he sees fit.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Comparing this to a financial obligation is ludicrous at best.

[hedgetrimmer]

He doesn't have a homeowners association, he is being challenged by the township.

[hedgetrimmer]

Planned communities and homeowner associations have evolved from a utopian socialistic ideal to undemocratic, private governments that govern without a Bill of Rights, proper “checks and balances,” and without elections. It is estimated that over 50 million Americans live in approximately 205,000 covenant controlled community, governed by a homeowner association (ABC News 13). More and more Americans are moving into these types of communities every year. This is more a cause of spreading association governed housing developments than an actual desire by Americans to live in this type of community. Obviously, the Glassel example is an extreme case but it certainly drives home the point that seemingly petty disagreements can quickly spiral out of control. Another case of HOA harassment occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. According to Diana Sahagun, a reporter for the Las Vegas Sun, “Elisa Ross installed a hidden camera outside her home because she is living in absolute terror – not of burglars, but of her homeowners association.” Ross was questioning the boards’ practices, which was an unwelcome intrusion. Sahagun goes on to report that, “Board members, she [Ross] said, threatened that if she didn’t stop questioning their practices, they would retaliate. When she kept asking questions, fliers started appearing around the neighborhood with her name, address, and phone number, telling neighbors to ostracize her.”

One could argue that an HOA is a modern and legalized dictatorship. In the vast majority of homeowner associations the builder writes the “laws” otherwise known as covenants and is the only one with input on how they should be drafted. Making the rules in a Monarchial setting means that the power and authority does not come from the people being governed, in fact, they have no say whatsoever. The choice is, either agree with the CC&Rs or don’t move in. In some cases there is not even a provision to make fundamental changes to the codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R). When there are they often require 90-100% homeowner approval. Another problem with homeowner associations, for example, is that developers are allowed to create bills of attainder, or an empty lien against a house. These are to be used in the future in case a homeowner violates one of the rules laid out by the developer. This gives the HOA the authority to foreclose on a homeowner’s house as punishment for violating a rule, such as failure to pay assessments or fees (which cannot be claimed as taxes) or even simple infractions such as painting your house an “unauthorized color” or failing to trim your shrubs appropriately. The U.S. Constitution prohibits bills of attainder but developers create them and use them as the “law of the land” in a mini-government known as a Mandatory Homeowners Association. If this is prohibited by the Constitution then clearly HOA’s are unconstitutional.

http://www.epinions.com/content_3348799620

[Iscool]

It's a matter of liberty...I'm all for liberty...The whinin' woman that doesn't like the view has every right to build a fence so she doesn't have to look at this fella's treasures...She doesn't have to look if she doesn't want to...It's his liberty and pursuit of happiness that's being violated...
He has every right to defend his liberty...