A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (PROPERTY RIGHTS)

2005-06-23 | UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

[inquest]

Constitutional amendment in response to disagreeable supreme court rulings are the wrong approach. It would do nothing but sanctify the notion that they can amend the Constitution just by making a ruling, and that is definitely the absolute last thing we need right now. We need to be sending the opposite message.

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.

[rollo tomasi]

Those in the minority were all appointed by Repubs. 4-3.

This ruling should put pressure on Pres. Bush to nominate a USSC justice that is on par with the ideology of Patrick Henry at least. Anything less could wind up like Stevens, Kennedy, Souter or Sandra 'Miss International Law' O'Connor (Must give props to O'Connor for her dissent though).

[Bob Buchholz]

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?

[freeeee]

This ruling should put pressure on Pres. Bush to nominate a USSC justice that is on par with the ideology of Patrick Henry at least.

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.

[rollo tomasi]

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.

[lepton]

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.

[lepton]

Well, I know that is the feeling here on FR, but the fact is that since 1800 ALL COURTS have ruled that anyone who is "developing" property has precedence over people who have "pristine" property rights (the "Mill Acts").

Living in it isn't using it? Also, this property was "developed".

[lieutenant columbo]

much more important than flag burning, IMO

[musanon]

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.

[gwjack]

You may see the opinion at:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf


Gwjack

[Roccus]

Every property owner in the contry who has a flag should hang it upside down. This is a demonstration that will NOT go unnoticed

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Well, I know that is the feeling here on FR, but the fact is that since 1800 ALL COURTS have ruled that anyone who is "developing" property has precedence over people who have "pristine" property rights (the "Mill Acts"). Whether you agree with it or not, the Court acted completely in line with precedence here in supporting "developmental rights."

Then explain the Endangered Species Act.

[Labyrinthos]

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.

[avg_freeper]

"We really, really mean it this time" amendments are silly. But so is the supreme court.

[LS]

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.

[inquest]

"We really, really mean it this time" amendments are silly.

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.

[LS]

I don't follow your questions.

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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

ALL land that Washington D.C. OWNS should be returned to the States..

With one exception: The Supreme Court Building should be returned to the people and the current squatters evicted - NOW.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Either branch could issue a 'finding' that public takings for private gain are against basic Constitutional principles that protect individual human rights.

Have you forgotten the Schiavo case so soon? There is only one branch of government. That's why you get this ruling. You think you would get this if the Schiavo killing had been stopped despite their "rulings"?