Posted on 06/23/2005 10:50:22 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
RIGHT TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
1. Whereas the power to tax is the power to destroy; Tax on all property, real and personal, except as income or on sale or transfer, above one-tenth of one percent per annum shall be prohibited.
2. The taking of property by eminent domain shall only be by just compensation for the purpose of the erection of public infrastructure.
3. Public property that is sold or otherwise converted to private use within 20 years shall first be offered to its original owner(s) or their heirs in substantially its original condition at its original price of acquisition.
4. Property that is seized for non-payment of taxes must be speedily sold at auction. Any amount above the tax owed and costs must be returned to the owner.
5. This article shall have no time limit on its ratification.
Besides, if we can get 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve an amendment, then we could get the state legislatures to repeal these obnoxious laws in the first place. That would be infinitely more productive.
AMENDMENT???? Amend what? If you think that the judicial branch cares about a constitution, think again. They can't read, or don't bother to read the plain english of our current constitution.
Exactly what do you want to do, give them another amendment to ignore?
That's funny. He will do nothing of the sort. Oh, far from it. Mark my words, he will not denounce this court decision, nor will anyone in his administration. Furthermore, he will not push for any Congressional legislation to counter it, nor will he permit the same to come across his desk. If it did, he might even be able to find his veto stamp.
And I'd love to be wrong about this and have to eat my words.
I agree with you about Bush but pressure will be applied none the less. The Pres. has his own agenda and I don't like where it's going.
How about just imposing a literacy requirement on judicial confirmations and judicial rulings. Some things are just nuance - the ruling you are protesting is simply functional illiteracy.
Living in it isn't using it? Also, this property was "developed".
much more important than flag burning, IMO
An Amendment is not needed..
Both Congress & the Executive are sworn to obey the Constitution. --
Either branch could issue a 'finding' that public takings for private gain are against basic Constitutional principles that protect individual human rights.
They could urge/authorize that the Justice Dept make available public defenders to citizens facing such infringements by state or local authorities who misuse their power.
You may see the opinion at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
Gwjack
Every property owner in the contry who has a flag should hang it upside down. This is a demonstration that will NOT go unnoticed
Thanks for the link, I actually finished reading the entire opinion, including the dissents, about an hour ago, and I find a most interesting problem: We often complain here at FR about activist judges who overrule our elected legislators and effectively legislate from the bench. But in this particular case, Judge Stevens basically says that the Federal Courts have no business second guessing the legislative wisdom of the elected officials who approved the scheme in the first place. In other words, judicially overturning the determinations of the local legislature is the kind of judcial activism that we generally oppose.
That is a very good point, because (I'm not legal scholar) but to my knowledge, that defense of "developmental rights/mill acts" has NOT been used vs. "environmental takings." Quite the contrary, it's always been the "private property" argument, and we see how far that has gotten.
Exactly. They imply that we didn't mean it the first time around, and that will end up weaking the parts of the Constitution that don't get similarly reinforced. It's a losing game. Better to just take our wrath out on those who are most responsible - the politicians who write these laws in the first place.
Courts ruled in favor of squatters, who clearly "took" other people's land, but who were allowed to take it because they developed it (i.e., built houses, farms).
The mill acts said that a farmer who damaged (in essence, "took") another's land to build a mill on his own land was not liable.
I put up this amendment to reverse the SCOTUS and a lot of bad precedent. But EVERYBODY in the government and everyone once you put them in the government CRAVES THIS POWER, cities, counties, states and feds, but only now believes we are so docile they could explicitly take it. The only way we will ever get this one back is to get rid of this government altogether.
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.