I don't like these either. But at least there is some plausible justification based upon the notion that driving is a licensed activity. Occupying ones own home is in no way similar.
ML/NJ
>>This is precisely the reason for my discomfort at the roadside License / Insurance / Registration checkpoints that seem to be in vogue today. By design, that technique assumes GUILT by the drivers randomly on that route and exclusively allows passage once credentials are examined.
>
>I don’t like these either. But at least there is some plausible justification based upon the notion that driving is a licensed activity. Occupying ones own home is in no way similar.
That’s where you’re wrong.
In 2005, there was a case called Kelo v. New London in which the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New London. What had happened was New London had used eminent-domain to take Kelo’s house, which as I understand had no outstanding tax-debt, in order to turn the property over to a private developer. The justification the city gave for using eminent-domain on behalf of this private entity for fulfilling the “for public use” clause of the 5th Amendment was that a *projected* increase in tax-revenue from the private-developer’s project.
Put another way, the Supreme Court said that it is well-and-good for a government entity to take your house/property and give it to someone else because they THINK that it will generate more taxes. This means that you live in your own home only at the pleasure of the government.
Of course, I would love to see the members of the 2005 USSC brought up on charges of Conspiracy Against Rights for this incident:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
The problem is that so many people believe that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, which is a logical absurdity because 1) the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court (and denies the ability of that court to amend or alter the Constitution) and 2) the Justices take an oath to support the Constitution; if the Constitution is whatever they say it is then that oath is to merely support/agree with whatever they say.