Posted on 06/23/2005 10:50:22 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Basic property rights already exist under the Constitution. Let's begin by proposing impeachment of 5 SCOTUS justices for not upholding what is stated clearly in the Constitution.
Then it might still be a good idea to propose a Constitutional amendment such as you are suggesting here.
I don't think that would have the desired effect. Anyone who travels this country by road has seen the proliferation of flags since the attacks of 9/11. If all these were upside down to indicate a ship (the ship of state) in distress, it could not escape notice.
So they took undeveloped land, and developed it. In the New London case, the land was already developed, and was a residential neighborhood.
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.
If he took the rocks and such from the ground sure...but if he took it from the walls of his neighbors house, I don't think it's applicable. Developed vs. undeveloped.
As an aside, "Squatter's rights," like much of longstanding bankruptcy law have a common-law link to the 7 years limit on debts in the OT. The assumption is if the owner couldn't have been bothered with the properties for so many years, that they really didn't have an interest in it anyways. In the New London case, in most of the properties, people were actively living on the direct portion of the small properties. While your argument has some merit for the "investment properties", I think it quite a leap to include actual homes that the owners live in as falling into the category of "undeveloped".
And regardless of whether one walks his fenceline or not, one could argue that private property should be protected whether you EVER use it or not.
I'm not agreeing with the 200 years of American legal tradition---I probably fall more with the "pristine" libertarians who say that your property is your property, no matter what, and it shouldn't matter if your property development benefits ANYONE else.
My point here---and the one people are trying to dodge---is that this, after all, IS the understanding and framework that we have had for almost 200 years, and to ditch that would seem to me to be, well, "Judicial activism."
I think the argument ought to be framed differently: it seems that whether courts uphold existing law or "write" new law, they are always ruling in favor of government over individuals---except when it comes to national security, when they almost always rule in favor of individuals over the rest of us.
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"?
I fail to see any connection between Schiavo and your proposed Amendment.
And the Supreme Court rules against them and they quietly fade away. Get it now?
This theivery of property began with elected officials in New London (and all over the country). SCOTUS merely colluded with them -- don't let the other branches off the hook. They are all to blame.
LS wrote:
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.
If there is one reason why I consider myself a conservative you have hit on it. For years the left, mainstream and moonbat, have railed agaist a supposed military industrial complex. What has grown under the radar has been a government coporate cartel. Unfortunately this cartel does not involve huge players like the Pentagon and Boeing, but local governments and real estate interests, and retailers, and construction companies. We have seen this in NYC for years only the courts protected the little guy. An old story in Queens speaks of when Macy's was building itys store in Elmhurst. It wanted a whole city block. All but one of the owners sold out, but this one old woman refused and forced Macy's to build around her. By this SCOTUS decision the Marshals would have carried her out bag and baggage.
I will never say forget Abortion, but this decision today presents people who love LIBERTY a new challenge.This is why modern liberals must be denied control of SCOTUS especially. Their love is for the state. ours is for LIBERTY.
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.
And the Supreme Court rules against them and they quietly fade away. Get it now?
I think that faced with such clear opposition, the Judicial branch activist 'majority' would be the ones to fade away.
Not that my scenario is likely to happen, mind you. Both other branches -want- the 'takings' clause to be ignored. It gives them more power.
However, I would be interested to see how he justified "squatter's rights."
I agree with Justice Thomas.
So do I. -- And Thomas does not agree "that overturning a contrary opinion held by the courts for 170 years would amount to judicial activism."
But I'm trying to get you to see that overturning a contrary opinion held by the courts for 170 years would amount to "judicial activism.
No matter how long the courts have held an erroneous opinion, overturning it is not 'activism'. - It's a return to original intent.
On further reading, Justice Thomas's dissent has real problems. See my commentary on the other thread. And he does NOT deal with "squatter's rights," which is a fundamental (and completely accepted) form of "takings," much more basic than even the Mill Acts.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
While I think that will be the only thing that we can do in the end, they will slaughter us and the media will portray us as right wing kooks.
"they will slaughter us "
Not possible. Not even close.
I am horrified at this decision by the Supreme Court. The property rights had already been erroded too much.
How do you figure?
Numbers. They have 2 million, tops, under arms, we have tens of millions.
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.