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.
There are things to keep in mind. By prohibiting property tax, you prohibit confiscatory rates and seizures through nonpayment. But you also raise other tax rates to compensate. Some places have a lot of property and few people. I am a believer in taxing only income flows and not wealth. But then you have to deal with leins and seizures and provide language for that which cannot be abused. We know that with our courts you have to be explicit and then some.
Section 3 could use some work in defining what is conversion to private use such as renting the land out or offering private concessions at a public facility. But I am presenting this as an initial draft.
I tried posting the following had major problems...doing something wrong. Received in an e-mail, but had been on fox News.
Supreme Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain
Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
excerted.
http://www.foxnews.com
Seems they just scratched the 5th Amendment, one giant step toward socialism
There goes the neighborhood.
"Bump" comment of the day:
Dems send fake letters to our Republican congressmen. The MSM pushes the idea of "no polls".
The outcome? Republicans read and react to constituent letters that are fake.
Rush figured out he was getting fake calls, FreeRepublic realized trolls were among us, but the GOP reps still haven't figured it out.
Once again while conservatives attempt to protect individuals from government, liberals assert government rights and power over individuals.
Why not just use the ones that are already there that outlaw this?
I would add a provision that land taken under eminent domain may not be sold to a private entity except for the original owner or heirs for a period of 20 years. This would put an end to the practice of local government siezing land to sell to a developer so that they might enjoy higher tax revenues from the property.
That article was posted here, too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts
Will cross-post to this thread, as constitutional amendment was discussed there.
Ping
I'll stick with the existing Constitution.
I don't think I agree with any of your proposed text.
** MAJOR SOCIALISM ALERT **
And who said that the Supreme Court liberals are trying to set up the judiciary as the tool of destruction of individual rights???
Welcome to the People's Republic of the United States!!!
Does anyone ave an actual copy of the opinion. I would like to reads it first before I go ballistic.
There is no "existing Constitution".
Normally, statements in the Constitution apply only to the Federal Government. You need language that explicitly applies the Ammendment also to the States.
"Tax on all property, real and personal, except as income or on sale or transfer" needs a clearer statement of what's taxable and what's not.
No Constitutional amendment needed. The Supreme Court just ignored the 5th as it is.
We only need the 2nd at this point. It will be the only thing that will stop the outright tyranny.
"one-tenth of one percent" of what? The assessed value? The market value? The number of pixies inhabiting the land? The amount of wetlands contained within when it rains? And all as defined how?
I suggest that you need to specify this value as is done in California (i.e., the value at the last sale, period).
You are right to stick with the existing Constitution. If the traitors on the supreme court can nullify the 5th Amendment, they can nullify the whole thing.
The SCOTUS has yet to publish the opinion on its web site. Even the libs in my office our outraged.
This should be voted in NOW. Before the Communists on the "Supreme" Court and their henchman in the legislature's complete their theft of the country.
This is a valid approach. Some of the original Constitutional debate concerned how to raise revenue with taxation of property being deemed impossible. Taxes on commerce and in particular foreign trade was seen as feasible. Unfortunately, the states have created departments to put a rate value on property and the Fed Gov has not stepped in to stop this practice, although they have the power.
They have no right whatsoever to be outraged. It was THEIR side of the court that did this. They should be dancing in the halls...........
I'm thinking this doesn't fall along the lines of your classic liberal or conservative definition in who is outraged. I've found tons with liberal ideas on some topics (abortion, gay rights, etc) are equally outraged over this as your "traditional" conservatives. There's some sort of weird division going on here, IMO...
Around where I live its the "conservative" republican dominated government that is trying to take over perfectly good homes by eminent domain so that shopping centers can get built... Go figure....
Point taken.
But I have an idea. We research the outrage they called the majority opinion in their "Americans are sharecroppers" decision they just made.
Then with much research, forethought and counsel, we draft an amendment that explicitly counteracts their decision.
Then when local 3rd-world style politicos try to steal land and give it to their cronies, we send the issue back to SCOTUS.
At that point SCOTUS is in a pinch. They'll have to honor the new amendment or declare themselves in outright defiance of it. When the latter happens, we have a constitutional crisis, and a huge stink occurs. They don't want that. We do. If they are in defiance, the courts credibility and even authority may be undermined. Basically we'll twist their arm until they say "uncle" to save their own power.
The only catch in my plan is SCOTUS decides which cases it takes. If its members wouldn't uphold our amendment, they'll definitely sidestep the case as it has the 2nd Amendment (and for exactly the same reason).
So ultimately, different circuit courts will issue conflicting opinions and different states will have different federal rulings.
And the moment a SCOTUS justice retires, we have a chance to take the case back.
My plan might not be perfect, and I'm sure it needs work but its better than what we have now, which is nothing. Anyone here feel free to critique it.
Can someone post the SC names and which President appointed them?
Realistically, I don't think any of this stands a chance right now. However, I'll keep it in my thoughts next time I blow out my birthday candles.
Have to get rid of (1). It's a separate issue, and will only divide and distract.
But I'm all for the rest of it. I wholeheartedly support a Constitutional amendment to reverese this abhorrent SCOTUS ruling.
Hmm, I saw a copy once. I am sure it exists, and I like it in it's current form.
This goes along with "squatter's rights," which held that someone who did not "ride his fence" and check his land in 7 years deserved to lose it to someone who was willing to live on it and develop it.
Now, we can debate the rightness or wrongness of either, but no one can deny that in the U.S. the long-term effect of this, as Jefferson would have liked, was to break up estates and move land into the hand of people; to have people DO something with their land (i.e., to improve life for everyone); and accelerate economic growth.
Yes, that's right. The majority of justices in the majority opinion were nominated by Republicans.
The alternative would have required the Court to overturn 170 years worth of legal precedent. That might have been the right call---but it certainly would have been an "activist" Court to do such a thing.
Yeah, it's a quaint museum piece now.
and I like it in it's current form.
The current form has too many crayon markings, strike outs and white outs on it. I prefer the original even if government could give a flying ____ what it says.
2. Someone can come along and tell the government that they could do more public good with your property.
3. The notion that a person cannot use their own land in way of their choosing (even if the only beneficiary is the owner), but the use must benefit the government or risk a 'better citizen' convincing the government that they should get your property...for the public good...is communism
4. It is always open to opinion as to what the best public use is for a certain project. By associating public benefit with an increase in the tax base, the new 'rule' espoused by the high court, it necessarily puts uses that do not provide maximum taxes in a detrimental position.
This is communism. The property is yours until we decide we can do something better with it.
Same thing in my Town. And I bet the developers in the New London case aren't card carrying Dem'RATS. I am truly outraged. Let's look at this case in the extreme (or perhaps not so extreme). Suppose I own a basic suburban McMansion on a sixteenth of an acre and I want to build a tennis court and Olympic size pool. The local zoning code requires a a half acre lot and the zoning board denies my request for an area variance. I go to my neighbor, who has two acres and I offer to buy land from him to give me the acreage needed to build the tennis court and pool. My neighbor says "no" if only because he can't swim and hates tennis. So I go the Town Board and ask them to condemn my neighbor's property and deed title to me so that I can make the improvements, which will increase the taxable value of my realty and provided needed construction jobs to a half dozen illegals from south of the border. Mindful of the $10,000 that I have donated to their political party over the years and with a "wink and a nod" with respect to future donations, the Town Board approves my request and exercises the power to acquire the property by eminent domain.
Thank you, I tried finding a prior post but ended up with old posts from the time in went to the Surpremes.
As my tagline for some time now has read:
And that should be for starters..
NEXT; buildings OWNed by Washington D.C..
and after that federal law should be subservient to State law.. on all things within the boundarys of that State..
THEN.. let the States fight it out on how big the federal gov't should BE...
In number (2), maybe "public infrastructure" should be defined more strictly, and the proposed amendment should specify the situations in which property seizure is warranted...
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
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.