Posted on 06/23/2005 8:06:55 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Everybody knows about the shot that was heard around the world as the birthing pains of this once great nation. Today, sadly, we may have heard it's death knell.
It did not come with violence or shots fired. It came with the virtual elimination of personal property rights.
Our founding fathers knew how important the ownership of property was and sought to protect the right to be secure in the ownership of property to the extent that they enshrined the guarantee that property would not be taken for public use without due process and just compensation.
For over 200 years it was understood that "public use" meant that the ownership would transfer from the private owner to the local, state, or federal government for things such as military bases, roads, schools, prisons, etc. Now, the meaning of "public use" has been altered by 5 people who were never elected to office and in all reality, are completely unaccountable to anyone, to mean privately owned condos, shopping centers, and business parks under the thin guise that those enterprises would contribute more tax money to the coffers, thus increasing the "public good"
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority said that judges should give city councils and state legislatures "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," he added. To make sure that he wasn't misunderstood he added, "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," and just destroyed any pretence that you have any recourse whatsoever if the government or county decides that they want your property for any reason at all.
Sandra Day O'Connor writing a scathing dissent correctly said that now rich and politically land developers and businesses could basically take your land away from you with the help from the local government. Yes, you could fight it in court, but it is now fruitless as you are guaranteed to lose in a fixed fight.
For years the people have for the most party sat quietly as the government stole more and more freedoms from us. Prior to 1914 and fool could take any drug he or she wanted and kill themselves, thus increasing the quality of the gene pool for the rest of us. Before 1918, the government had no claim to your wages and could not tax them. Prior to 1934, Sears sold machine guns from their catalog and nobody thought anything about it. Prior to the 1950's preachers could freely endorse or denigrate any political candidate they wanted, just as had been done since the very first town government was formed in this country almost 350 years prior. Since 1986 it has been illegal to manufacture and sell a machine gun to a civilian despite the fact that in the past several decades the number of people int he US murdered by a person with a machine gun has been exactly one, and the person doing the shooting was a police officer using a gun issued to the police department.
But hope is not lost however, ownership of real property does a funny thing to people. It is a spot that a person can say, "This land is MINE!" with a dedication and a fierceness that is somewhat scary. Religion and politics and abortion and the WOT all take a back seat when two neighbors are faced with having their property stolen by the government.
Maybe that bell sounding isn't the death knell but the alarm.
Maybe this will awake the sheeple to realize that the socialist have gone too far.
Maybe the bell is just signalling round two of the Revolutionary War.
Will this war be fought with bullets or ballots?
We shall see.
Worth repeating.
I realize that in this case.
Based upon her record as of late, O'Connor has become that broken clock which is right twice a day.
Someday soon, the people may look up at the sky and say, "Today is a good day to die."
isn't not upholding the constitution ground for impeaching a justice?
five impeachments need to be submitted to congress tomorrow.
this is so blatent! "everyone" (obviously not) knows what "public use" means.
even my liberal friends are shocked at this verdict. (shocked that they agree with the four who decented.)
Several years ago, a not so busy corner on the edge of my town had a liquor store standing on it. The property owner was renting the building to them. The property owner also had a 20 acre empty lot right next to it. As the city grew, Home Depot bought the lot next to the liquor store and attempted to buy the lot the liquor store stood on. As it happens, the liquor store had a 50-year lease on the property. Home Depot wanted the lot for more parking. The property owner and Home Depot blocked all access to the liquor store with construction cones to try to put them out of business. After a lengthy court battle, the liquor store won. Needless to say after about 12 years or so, the liquor store still thrives on that corner, The Home Depot is now defunct, a great ironic twist if you ask me.
"Consider this a public notice: If the State comes for my property, they had best send a SWAT team first."
They'll be more than happy to oblige. Just ask the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver. They love shooting "anti-government" types. And they've gotten good at it.
What a sad day for our country.
Really? I wonder what they would do if this was linked over at the DU site? I don't have an account. Could you do it?
One possible upside to this...maybe the RINO-trash in the Senate will now be more disposed to support conservative SCOTUS nominees. But I'm not getting my hopes up.
"Nine out of ten voices in my head are telling me to clean my guns."
It has been standard practice only in some communities. Many others operated on the original intent of eminent domain and will now feel free to take whatever they want.
Mr. Donald Scott, paging Mr. Donald Scott, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
O'Connor dissented on this important issue.
"isn't not upholding the constitution ground for impeaching a justice? "
If it were, they would have been impeached for ignoring the 14th Amendment and quoting the source for their decisions was not the Constitution but the laws of OTHER NATIONS.
You must mean Round two of the Civil War. The Civil War was fought over states rights and it is possible that another could happen. Decisions like this from the court will cause people to arm themselves and protect their property.
Excellent post, BOT. I just finished reading Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency," about George Washington. It very clearly makes the point how Washington felt about personal property rights. A Supreme Court that can smash the fifth amendment, can do the same to the second.
DU Is like a car wreck, I look but I dont want to be in one! L0L
I dont have an account L0L
Some idiot from Business Week (!) was all in favor of it on today's show. But he said "No worries - the state governments will protect you from egregious government."
Dumbass.
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.