Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
There is a lot of land for sale that would easily satisfy the acreage demands of any development corporation. That isn't the issue.
What they want is land that is in already proven locations but owned by powerless people.
Precisely. This is exactly what they do in the People's Republic of China. Is that what Breyer meant by "using international law?
Everybody is powerless. It is only just now become transparent with this SCOTUS decision.
Yes, but Amendments 13, 14, and 15, along with the related Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Civil Rights Act of 1873, were simply overruled by the Supreme Court in favor of the state legislatures' rights to segregate black people and otherwise limit their voting rights and movements.
That it says something in the Constitution is interesting, but it does not seem to be binding in the United States. What the Constitution IS, in the American structure, is what the Supreme Court says it is.
I think that this is unsound.
I think that what the law is ought to be what the elected Congress says it is, and that the courts should merely be the executors of the law. But this is Civil Law thinking, and it is not at all in keeping with the way that the United States is constitutionally structured.
I see no way, within the US system as currently constituted, that decisions such as today's, or the others to which people have so negatively reacted, can be avoided. It is the nature of the system itself.
Amendment 10 of the Constitution does indeed say those words. But those words MEAN what the Supreme Court says they mean, and no more nor less.
I do not think this is good, but I acknowledge that it is the way it is. AntiGuv has taught me that it is the way it is because the American people ultimately WANT it that way: they do not overturn these acts, and perhaps they would not support either Congress or the US President directly overruling and nullifying any Supreme Court decision.
John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
[They are ALL deserving of IMPEACHMENT! Are any of these traitors planning to retire in the next 3 years?]
These judges have put a knife in the heart of American freedoms and Lord willing will be tried for treason. Private property and religious freedoms are necessary pillars of free nations and these arrogant and hateful judges should not be allowed to remain in office.
A jail cell would be to good for them.
That was actually a quote from the Soviet Constitution.
Yes, in my view most Americans are perfectly content with the amount of power the government exercises, and if anything wish that it would exercise more, so long as it does so for their pet interests. To the extent that they disagree with the immense power exercised by each of the three branches, it is because the power is not exercised in precisely the way they desire.
I am under no delusion whatsoever that a majority agrees with my views.
No, I do not agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter. It is a coequal branch.
I understand very well what it is you want.
It seems to be shared by many, many on FreeRepublic.
I agree that the US Constitution certainly does not clearly say that the judiciary has the power that it clearly exercises.
But it does clearly exercise it.
And the US Congress and US President, and all US states and people, accede to whatever the Supreme Court decides 100% of the time.
By contrast, sometimes the US Congress issues subpoenas and is flatly ignored by the Judicial branch, even by state judges. And sometimes it is ignored by the President, citing "executive privilege".
However, neither the President nor Congress ever defies any order of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is the Supreme Power in America.
Perhaps the Constitution does not say that, but that merely demonstrates that the Supreme Court is in fact supreme to the US Constitution.
This is apparently well-settled in the US, and people accept it.
That would be a miss. The legislature can always stay a couple years ahead of the SCOTUS, and the Pres a few weeks ahead of the Legislature. By the time SCOTUS is asked to make a decision the situation has been getting old as this case was old a hundred years ago. The Legislature can pass a new law tomorrow to change the entire situation and SCOTUS can only react.
I have no problem with pro life libertarians, I don't agree on every issue but find most to be consistent in their views. So, you might say that the temperature is in the 40's.
You don't have a statist leg to stand on unless you agree that your real estate holdings can be confiscated against your will to help the blighted in Watts.
"There is NOTHING wrong with the Constitution, it is beautiful in it's simplicity.
The problem is with the black-robed bastards that decided THEY have the authority to 'interpret' it, and REFUSE to uphold the principles on which it was founded!"
But it does not have a mechanism to protect itself against what the Supreme Court has done, does it?
If judges have taken this authority, as you have suggested, they did so well over a century ago. But they have never been defied since the American Civil War.
Which indicates to me that the system as it exists, with judges doing the things that you heartily oppose, is actually the US Constitutional system. It's not in the written Constitution, I agree, but that has been a dead letter for a long, long time, hasn't it? Judges have been doing precisely what they are doing now in America since they provoked the American Civil War with their Dred Scott decision. The President Lincoln defied them directly, but no official since has, for generation after generation.
So, there's the document, which perhaps held sway until 1857, which is to say 68 years. And then there is the modern structure in which judges behave as they do, for the last perhaps 132 years at least.
The written document is beautiful and simple, I agree.
But it is not the law in the land of the United States.
What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land in America, and this is nowhere made clearer than when the Supreme Court of the US makes laws that more or less directly contradict the language of the Constitution document.
The Supreme Court has never been defied, never been overruled, never been directly struck down, not since the Civil War.
It seems to me that reality is that what the Supreme Court says the US Constitution is, is the Constitution, and that whatever the piece of paper says, there has been nobody in America since Abraham Lincoln who has directly overruled the Supreme Court in defense of a different interpretation of the Constitution or the law.
I understand your anger, but what is the solution?
>>>> There is no way to force that except by the methods of the Godfather. I don't believe we have descended to horse heads already.
We sure have.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/dami0127_r.htm
Remember this story? Political bribes a la McGreevey "Machiavellian" style?
I stupidly thought the Halper Farm issue was put to rest since this scandal was busted.
Washington Stables http://www.washingtonstables.com owned by Halper's Family Farm will be shut down by October 2005 a la eminent domain.
If this doesn't bring home the seriousness of judicial nominees to the American people, then I don't know what else will, especially in this age when American home ownership is higher than ever. This ought to wake up many to the detriment of the Dems.
The Supreme Court is calling for revolution in this country. They have proven that they will not uphold the constitution. The rule of law cannot long endure without evenhanded sensible rulings from the courts.
[What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land in America, and this is nowhere made clearer than when the Supreme Court of the US makes laws that more or less directly contradict the language of the Constitution document.]
Well then, why do we even need a legislature for? The Supreme Court has turned into a communist run doddering old fools who suffer from the mental delusion of liberalism and marxist doctrine. The judges who voted for this should be thrown out of AMERICA Forever.
That's what I thought...sounds like it needs to be spelled out for them.
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.