Skip to comments.Supreme Court Tyranny (Thieving Property Rights, Destorying the United States)
Posted on 06/24/2005 10:04:20 AM PDT by traviskicks
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (posted 6/24/05)
4/23/05 Associated Press One of the worst days in the history of the United States. I am not exaggerating. This decision is antithetical to everything this country stands and stood for. Cities, states, counties, and the Federal Government can already, with impunity, seize private homes and businesses for the 'public use'. Yesterday the liberals on the Supreme Court took tyranny to the next level. Now, our government officials can seize private property and give it to other private citizens! How is this any different than what Huego Chavez is doing down in Venezuela?
Just like politicians and their cronies and the 'friends' and 'associates' of doctors and medical bureaucrats skip the lengthy, and often fatal, waitlists of the Canadian Health Care system, so too will the connected, the rich, and powerful, use government to prey upon the weak and helpless, and steal their property. As the so-called 'moderate' Sandra Day O'Conner said:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
In Zimbabwe, a country starving and suffering under the thieving and murderous Marxist dictatorship, we find these recent actions would be now be legal in the United States:
When Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe systematically burned out white farmers and murdered them for their valuable land, the civilized world hardly noticed.It was about wealth redistribution, said Mugabe. It was about land reform, he said. Those buzzwords were enough for the international community and the slaughter continued. Now Mugabe has turned his deadly attention to the poor driving hundreds of thousands from their homes in what he euphemistically calls an "urban renewal" program or "Operation Drive Out Trash."
Hypothetically, in defending Mugabe, Justice Stevens, writing for the majority said:
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.
Since when was it the the duty of government to increase its tax revenues and provide jobs? I though the primary duty of government was to protect our liberty, which means minimizing our taxes so we can create our own jobs. The most important function of government is establishing the equal rule of law, for example, preventing stealing, which is the very thing this ruling legalizes! But even if high tax revenues were the sole goal of an elitist government, it still doesn't justify this sort of thievery. Who the heck are these elitist judges to establish their own version of Tyranny over the citizens of the United States? (See The Founding of The United States for how private property rights are at the root of our constitution and liberty) And why should we sit here and take it?
From the declaration of independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. <.> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The good news is that people are not sitting silently. There is broad public outcry over this decision that will hopefully scare our politicians into action. People on FreeRepublic.com, a Conservative/Libertarians forum and the folks at the Democratic Underground, a liberal/socialist forum, were equally upset and outraged as seen by comments here and here and here and here, respectively. Even Ralph Nader came out with the following statement:
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness.
Who, you might ask, is actually in favor of the right of government to take property from one group of people and give it to another? Well, you're phrasing the question the wrong way because we've been doing this since 1913 when the first peacetime income tax was passed. During the 60s and 70s and up through the 90s, we spent trillions of dollars on wealth redistribution that just made the poor poorer and the rich less productive. What you mean to be asking is: who can support the confiscation of private land by the government in order to give it to another individual? As you can see the two questions are quite similar (nearly identical). The only reason this ruling is upsetting people is because the debate has now been framed in a manner that people can more readily comprehend. But, to answer your question, no one is supporting it - well, besides the New York Times, which came out with a sickening editorial titled: The Limits of Property Rights, the first sentence of which is: The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. (hey NYT, it certainly doesn't look like the houses being condemned are 'economically troubled')
I wonder what all of these irate Democrats on the Democratic Underground think of this editorial from their vaunted Grey Lady? This is why we must get strict interpreters of the Constitution on the Supreme Court; ie Conservative/Libertarian Judges. How can the vast majority of the country be against an unconstitutional act and yet, the act stands? As James Madison said:
"It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual."
Why even bother with real estate agents any more? Why would a developer try to voluntarily purchase properties when he can simply have the state seize them? Who decides what the seized properties are worth? The thieving government! The entity buying/stealing the property gets to decide what they, or the corrupt third party, pay for it? Sounds to me like a serious conflict of interest (just like Unions deciding what their wages should be and then blackmailing and bankrupting the people who create the jobs for them ).
The residents are still fighting:
Among the New London residents the city has tried to force out of their homes was Wilhelmina Dery, who was born in her home in 1918 and has lived there all her life.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
"I spent all the money I had to buy these properties," said Von Winkle, a former deli owner who lives in the neighborhood and owns two other rental homes. "They were not inherited. They were not a gift. I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."
Hey Wilheminia Dery and Von Winkle, "Screw You!" Who are you, mere citizens, to know what is best for the 'masses'? Don't you have any notion of 'public sacrifice'? The STATE will bulldoze and bury both of you, along with any leftover 'radical notions' of American Liberty.
The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.
- C. S. Lewis
I blame the Democrats for this decision. Why? The answer is can be summed up in one word: BORK.
Robert Bork, a highly distinguished and extremely qualified legal scholar, was vilified by the Democrats when Reagan nominated him to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The nomination hearings in the Senate were so filled with character assasination, nasty innuendos and dirty tricks that a new verb was created - "to bork" someone is to run their name through the mud for political purposes.
After Bork's nomination failed in the Senate, due to the vilifying treatment he received, Reagan then nominated Kennedy, who was later confirmed.
I cannot fathom a Justice Bork siding on the wrong side of this decision - as Kennedy did.
So, whenever someone from DU or other leftist organization complains about this decision, remind them of Judge Bork and how this decision would have been different if he, and not Kennedy, were on the Supreme Court.
No one should be surprised with this sort of statement from a bunch of pro-abortion ghouls.
The Revolution cannot come too soon eh?!
I have already written a letter to my Representative and both my Senators and faxed it. I told them that while Congress fiddled with the Flag Burning amendment, the Supreme Court burned the Constitution. One would curtail First Amendment rights, and the other curtails property rights. It's unconscionable that a private party would be given access to the law, lawyers, and power to compel by force that the government has to gain private profit, instead of having to negotiate with the property owner and satisfy them directly. I went on for a page. My Representative voted for the Flag Burning amendment (which I am dead set against). I asked all 3 if they had the integrity to choose what is right against what they think will get them votes, and to introduce an amendment that will actually matter and protect all Americans against government intrusion.
This decision shows that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Robert Bork disagrees with the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Is he someone we really would have wanted to be a supreme court justice?
I meant the greed of the few!
Why even bother owning property now?
Untill we elect real representatives , and not political elite rulling classes, this will get worse and worse.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." ---- Abraham Lincoln
To: U. S. Congress
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVENCES
We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices:
John Paul Stevens
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
We, the undersigned, consider the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, 04-108, rendered June 23, 2005, not only unacceptable, but to be in criminal violation of the Justice's oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Be advised that We the People regard elected officials to be our public servants. Failure to take action against the Justices specified shall be considered support for the decision rendered in the aforementioned case, and will result in our resolve to ensure your defeat in the next election.
Being from myriad political and ideological spectra, we are united in our belief that our right to own property is inalienable.
PLEASE sign the petition - we need to let Congress know of our outrage.
signed. I'll try to pass that link around too.
Given that Bork swallows the "the 2nd Amendment is only about the state militia" twaddle and pretty much prostituted himself during the Microsoft antitrust fight, I can quite easily see him voting with the anti-private-property side.
POST A THREAD!
I now think I wasn't extreme enough.
Bork has little respect for individual rights. Nor does he favor having the Court strike down local laws, regardless of the constitutionality of those laws. He'd've voted with the liberals for sure.
"Do it or die."
OK, OK - I posted my own thread here : SIGN THE SCJ IMPEACHMENT PETITION! (VANITY)
BTW, I gave you credit for it, LOL.
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.