Posted on 06/24/2005 5:59:15 AM PDT by conservativecorner
I wrote a book a few years ago about property rights.
It was called, "This Land Is Our Land."
I didn't think of it as an optimistic book at the time.
But after yesterday's chilling U.S. Supreme Court ruling that government can seize our property against our will for no other reason than it capriciously chooses to do so, the title is certainly no longer accurate.
We do not own our property any more in America.
Imagine the home you own the one you scrimped and saved your entire life to purchase, the one you planned on living in for the rest of your life, the one you planned to pass on to your heirs was taken from you, capriciously by a small group of local officials in conspiracy with wealthy developers who want to level it and build office buildings.
You may not have to imagine it. It could happen to you any time. It has already happened to a group of Connecticut homeowners salt-of-the-earth, working Americans whose modest homes represent their life savings, their estates, their life's work.
That was the finding of the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Your property is not your property.
That home you invested so much of your life in it belongs to the government. It is only on loan to you until the day the government chooses to loan it to someone else. That is the message of the black-robed tyrants. Listen to it well.
This is the most basic freedom upon which all the other liberties we hold dear are built.
That's what the founding fathers explained. Freedom of speech? It descends, they said, from the right to property. Your thoughts, your beliefs, your opinions were equated with your personal property and possessions. That's why you had the right to express them according to your conscience.
Notice I said "had."
Five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court undercut every freedom we know in America.
I do not exaggerate when I say they have done more damage to the Constitution than any five people in history.
Stop worrying about Osama bin Laden and nuclear-armed terrorists. All they can do is kill you. Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stephens and Stephen G. Breyer have done something worse. They would have you live in servitude to the state. They would reduce all free Americans to serfs. They would make government your master.
The Congress better stop worrying about trivial issues like flag desecration. The Constitution has just been trampled, spit upon and torched. In doing so, these judicial terrorists have done more harm to the American way of life than weapons of mass destruction ever could.
If this ruling is permitted to stand by the U.S. Congress, it's simply time to start shopping for a new country or start planning the revolution. I don't know what else to say about it.
President Bush needs to speak out against this travesty of justice. The Congress needs to be heard from. Yes, the Congress has the power, should it ever have the courage to use it, to set aside a ruling like this and permanently enjoin the court from ever ruling in the future against the well-enshrined, inalienable, well-documented, constitutionally protected right to own and enjoy property.
This country was birthed in a war of independence fought against an unaccountable empire that failed to acknowledge and respect the rights of colonists in America. But the grievances of those heroic patriots that created the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known were trivial compared to the grievances 21st-century Americans have against the empire in Washington.
The only question is whether or not we have the courage of our forefathers. Are we willing to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to reclaim our American birthright of freedom?
It's time for a new tea party. It's time for a new Lexington and Concord. It's time for a new Declaration of Independence. It's time for civil disobedience and throwing off the shackles of rule by men. It's time to begin plotting how to re-establish the rule of law under a sovereign God.
You just described my (our) situation. We have property that we seriously want to pass on to our next generation. It was a King George Grant from the 1700's.
A bunch of idiot city folk have decided they like 'livin' in the country'. Moving out here and in general, being more of a PITA than a pleasant addition.
But, since they are crowding in this specific area, there is no doubt that things like malls, movie theaters etc are on the horizon.
Don't get me wrong, I like those too...but I don't see it as an inconvenience to drive 30 minutes to one (Heck, I lived in Atlanta, you couldn't get NO where in less than 30 minutes!).
So, those of us who have been quietly paying our taxes, preserving our property for the next generation are very likely to be the ones who get screwed over by a bunch of greedy, immoral azzhats who want to change the country to the city, whether we want it or not.
"The right against unreasonable search and seizure is gone too. Think of it, a state agency will be able to come onto their (no longer your) property to make assessments on the disposition of the state's property. Anything illegal they see will be fair game."
This is not unusual. In my town one is fined if we have not shoveled our sidewalks within 24 hours of a storm. The city OWNS the sidewalk.
They fine us for not maintaining their property.
I do, but one person will accomplish nothing.
That as well as the latest Rove - Rat flap are the non issue of the day on all the radio call in shows.
The elite (and their quislings) will try their best to pacify and misdirect all anger associated with this issue.
"First, just as in eminent domain cases, the parties are PAID for the property. So implying that someone who has worked and slaved for a home is just forced to hand it over wihtout compensation is untrue."
Can you really know so little about how this works? I know of two examples in my area where this was crap.
example - a commercial property was purchased on the maine st. of a local town. The property was taxed at a rate of $36K a year (very small business in a poor community). The city decided they needed to widen the raod. They condemmed the property and offered the owner $12K. Apparently his $35K tax assessment only applied as 'fair value' till the city wanted to steal it. The owner hired a lawyer and his 'fair value' immediately jumped to $18K where it stood.
example- A town upstate wanted to take a property. They first rezoned the $200K property to allow commercial activity, dropping the 'fair market value' of the home by $60K overnight and then took it for that price despite a 5 year period of taxing the place at $200K
And another... In the 1930 the state leased some property from a landowner and built a dam. In the 1980's the local government taxed the property around the dam at about $100K. The state declared the area a wetland precluding any sale but maintaining the value for tax purposes. In the 1990's they ran out of money to maintain the dam. Situation today, there is a unmaintained state swamp being taxed as a more than $100K property while the wetland designation has reduced the actual property value to less than $3K when the owner decided to finally try to sell it to get out from under the tax debt. The city may end up with the mess as a tax seized property.
"fair value' is only the absolute least the city thinks it can get away with paying for their theft.
There may be more of us than we think. That want to change things but believe we are alone.
mark
Yep, that's the mechanism.
And consider the actual devaluation of the property certain to result from this decision: these developers and municipalities can now pay less.
I wonder if the developers are giving any thought to the fact that their investments will be just as vulnerable?
I see this thing rippling through the real estate industry and worry.
An excellent point, especially when combined with this Supreme Court ruling.
Not me making the personal comments and not me that doesn't understand. Try reading again.
You can thank Papa Bush for that snake David Souter, wolf in sheep's clothing. Conservative my a**.
Seems now Papa Bush's dream of a "New World Order" does not seem so far away.
What a year. Terri Schiavo, now this...
I feel like America really is dying!!
I cry at the keyboard.....
Pfizer, lovely company. The same one that makes RU 486, the abortion bill.
Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
USA
Phone
1-212-733-2323
What scares me even more than real estate is the issue of parent's rights and custody.
Who knows when the day will come when no parent will have authority over his child. It will be "loaned" from the goverment and you will be a keeper of sorts, until the government says it needs or wants your kids (or perhaps you have too many and they will give a few to some childless couple, whatever).
Dear God.
George HW Bush= New World Order.
Answers your question.
I would venture that it is time for civil disobediance. Stand with landowners in your community who are the target of takings. Ask if they are willing to take one last stand, and ask if you can stand with them. When the sherrif comes to remove them, be prepared to be arrested as well.
If Congress does not act, if states do not act to prevent localities from doing this, it is the last act we have before violent resistance. It's down to that.
Let's go back to the Constitution - Art. 3 Section 1 - Article III. Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Congress actually has the power to constitute Courts as it sees fit. What are the Checks on the judiciary. The main one is impeachment. The last time a Federal judge was removed by Impeachment was Alcee Hastings who got himself elected to Congress.
What gives SCOTUS the power of Judicial Review? Essentially Congress does. When the Courts were initially established, SCOTUS eventually assumed judicial review authority in Marbury vs. Madison and have not been challenged since.
I think a little incident involving the 7th President and the Courts is insightful. It was a SCOTUS decision involving the Cherokee Indians ( and led to the "Trail of Tears"). SCOTUS handed down their decision. Jackson purportedly remarked , "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it" and then went on to do exactly what he wanted to do.
The point is that Congress has the power of the purse and the Executive has the power of arms. What does SCOTUS have?
My proposal is that Congress change US Code that gives them review over SCOTUS decisions. Give a high standard for invoking review and require 2/3 vote of both houses to overturn a SCOTUS decision.
Also, Congress needs to put some judges on the street. When they make these awful decisions, make them pay.
Why do you think the Democrats are putting up such a stink on judicial appointments? Precisely because they could never get their policies enacted by a body directly accountable to the people.
Some food for thought.
Is this right? Congress has the right to set aside a ruling? I thought it only had the power to limit jurisdiction. And if they limit jurisdiction, the SC won't hear property rights cases and hence can't rule in favor of property owners.
Our government is working hand and hand with the Supreme Court to destroy America, so they will be busy with that and bringing in more illegal aliens to compromise our voting. Behind their backs we can home school and keep our kids close to a good church and weather the storm as best we can. We have to keep fighting for our kids, regardless of the traitors who run this country.
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.