Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
We are now officially a socialist country.
Our property rights now are the same as someone living in China!!!!
It's in the Constitution. Government can take your property as long as it provides compensation. Property does not only include real estate. Patents, copyrights and trademarks may also be taken via eminent domain.
It would not surprise me to learn that in the near future some County Commissioner or property developer involved in such a seizure will fall victim to a sniping by a landowner. This will happen and it will happen more frequently, I'm afraid.
I'm also surprised to find myself of the opinion that if I were a jury on such a landowner's trial, I'd "OJ" the case and let them walk.
Please ping me when a plan has been set in motion.
Explain to me why you believe the "country" is safe? I live in a rural area and I don't trust my local governments any more than I would if I lived in a metro area. In fact, I would guess that this will be used more often in rural-but-growing areas.
My husband posted that, not realizing he was logged in under my name. If you want him to clarify, I'm sure he'll get back to you.
Anyway. Most of us got the meaning, even if you didn't.
But then, you were the one who saw justifiable outrage and labeled it "panic". If I recall correctly, you did the SAME THING when the outrageous decision was Campaign Finance Reform.
I kinda wonder sometimes why you're here.
...I wonder if they are "immune" from all out Rebellion...
I am just as po'd as you are.
I agree with your assertion about "legal" entities that are administrative as well as artificial in nature which is key because when they try to assume jurisdiction over a natural person, I believe it's done by contract. Here's why....everything in writing we receive from a gov't entity....city, state, etc. is an "offer of contract"....which can even be a letter saying your grass is too tall, etc. These letters/notices become a contract in three days unless the document is returned for "discharge and closure" of the matter and it has to be done "with honor"......if not, then there is a conflict created that can be acted upon by a city offical or attorney. As with all gov't. actions anymore it's very devious way to create a conflict that can facilitate gaining jurisdiction.....all cloaked in legalese and procedure we've never been privy to learning.
Even though a seizure may now be "legal", there are still civil court action ramifications.
You are correct, and Thomas Jefferson agreed with you:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." -- Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" -- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787.
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787.
Yup. The common law recognizes "notice and demand". I think a big part of it now is UCC, which basically says if you don't reply and contest something in ten days, they win by default.
Hm...I was afraid of that but it will not be worse than the cities I'm sure.
Time to ban together and contact our legislators and find a way to turn this over. The supreme court is quickly stepping over their boundaries.
And remember, once something is designated "public property", the government determines how it is used, what can be done with it and can prevent any religion use.
True enough. Although, most government officials involved in land issues have the benefit of government paid attorneys, and developers have the cash to front lawyers' fees. The poor homeowners in most cases only have enough to meet their immediate needs, let alone finance a lawsuit.
Time to begin Impeachment Proceedings against 4 Supremes eliminating the 5th Amendment by the stroke of a pen!
The flaming liberal professor Jonathan Turley is even strongly against it, he's talking on CNN right now.
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.