Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Nealz Nuze ^ | June 24, 2005 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 06/24/2005 5:11:41 AM PDT by beaureguard

I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country.

Background. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it. The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use.

The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use. Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use. This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed. This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation.

Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed. You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians.

Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision. In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics: There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend.

First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda. Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home. That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage. Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe. Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property. Belinda says no. She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased. So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol to talk to some politicians. He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him. Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to play Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.

Another example. This time we'll use me. About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains. It's a lot in a mountain resort community. Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so. At present it is not my intention to build a home. I bought the lot as an investment. Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low. Along comes a developer. He wants to build a home on my lot. I tell him the lot is not for sale. He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain. He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land. If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land. The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the land and turn it over. Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed.

Now take the situation in New London. This is the case the court was considering. The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents. The homes are old, but very well kept. One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home. Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center. This is America. This shouldn't happen in America. That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a new development would pay more in property taxes.

There are also small businesses located on this tract of land. They're history. The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property.

No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property. The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court. That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers.

I'm not through ranting. Read on.

Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point? If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hoes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price. I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not? Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't' accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and start the eminent domain process. This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value. The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate.

Another element of the New London case. These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront. Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property. This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company. Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures. This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project.

There's another element I want to add to this rant. I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the war against individualism. Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is. How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality" without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about?

The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals. Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around. When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights. Among those rights would be the right to property. Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights. They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights." Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights. People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged.

Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling? Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights.

The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights. Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: boortz; eminentdomain; kelo; nealznuze; turass; tyranny; tyrrany
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2005 5:11:42 AM PDT by beaureguard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; CFW; Lazamataz; ovrtaxt; georgiabelle; Sloth; LadyPilgrim; BlueMondaySkipper; ...

Boortz Ping!



If you want on or off Boortz ping list, FRmail me. This is not a high volume ping.


2 posted on 06/24/2005 5:13:39 AM PDT by beaureguard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
We all live in Pubic Housing now.
3 posted on 06/24/2005 5:14:44 AM PDT by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

It's time for far more than this, it's time to shitcan that POS called the SCOTUS and replace it with something elected, either that or we just need to scrap this entire government from the top down and create something new.


4 posted on 06/24/2005 5:15:52 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
It will be judicial tyranny that brings this country down. Every day brings another nail in the coffin for our Constitution.
5 posted on 06/24/2005 5:17:21 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter; Forecaster; stanley windrush

This is why the libs froth at the mouth over Judicial appointments: it's their power.


6 posted on 06/24/2005 5:20:26 AM PDT by IncPen (There's nothing that a liberal can't improve using your money...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw

Does that mean we still have to pay property taxes?


7 posted on 06/24/2005 5:20:45 AM PDT by Fawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Old news, really.

F.E.A.R.

8 posted on 06/24/2005 5:23:17 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
Yes, but they're now called tributes.
9 posted on 06/24/2005 5:23:36 AM PDT by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
According to a talk show I listened to this morning, the SCOTUS ruling included something to the effect that local and state governments could institute further protections for private property. That struck me as odd, since the eminent domain function was part of what the federal government was supposed to administer.

Carolyn

10 posted on 06/24/2005 5:23:57 AM PDT by CDHart (The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

Hey, even my lib friends were incensed over this decision. I more than half believe that Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens are suffering from some sort of group dementia.


11 posted on 06/24/2005 5:25:15 AM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw

Seems the second ammendment is about all we have left.

If you wanna get really steamed, go read Jonathan Adler's ramblings over in the Corrner on NRO. Seems he thinks property owners did pretty well in this case and that we should be pleased we at least got 4 justices on our side.

Please excuse me -- I feel a strange urge clean my gun.


12 posted on 06/24/2005 5:25:53 AM PDT by Cosmo (Liberalism is for girls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

Essentially, there are no rights to private property in America.

Why are we putting up with this?


13 posted on 06/24/2005 5:26:08 AM PDT by OpusatFR (Try permaculture and get back to the Founders intent. Mr. Jefferson lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; hellinahandcart

On please. Boortz is da man!


14 posted on 06/24/2005 5:29:49 AM PDT by sauropod (De gustibus non est disputandum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to play Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.

It's time to start turning this Supreme Court ruling on its head in cases like this. The developer in this hypothetical case will be sh!t out of luck -- and the politicians who are backing him will be thrown out of office on their @sses, when Belinda gets Wal-Mart or Home Depot to tender an offer on the land that the developer coveted for his "three or four large homes."

15 posted on 06/24/2005 5:30:04 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

I am so sick this morning over this.

Imagine what Her Majesty would do if she were elected and this were in force.


16 posted on 06/24/2005 5:30:29 AM PDT by Conservatrix ("He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
What I am having a hard time understanding is why are the liberals not howling about this. If you seize a number of $40,000 houses to build a golf course and $1,000,000 houses, isn't that a transfer from the poor to the rich?

Boortz seems to think that it might be a fair trade to allow Hillary to become president, trading this for Libertarian Party gains (and scaring the crap out of Republicans). I hope he notes that every SCOTUS justice that Slick Willy appointed came down on the wrong side of this issue.
17 posted on 06/24/2005 5:31:25 AM PDT by Bring Back Old Sparky (Teddy Kennedy: Drink! Drive! Swim for your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet
Hey, even my lib friends were incensed over this decision.

That doesn't surprise me. Wait till it becomes clear to everyone that the end result of this case will be that governments have the right to seize private property owned by poor minorities -- and that the prime benficiaries will be major corporations like Pfizer.

18 posted on 06/24/2005 5:32:18 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CDHart

"According to a talk show I listened to this morning, the SCOTUS ruling included something to the effect that local and state governments could institute further protections for private property. That struck me as odd, since the eminent domain function was part of what the federal government was supposed to administer."

Eminent Domain should have been elmimnated entirely from this continent, unfortunately it was not.

This is what happens when you leave the protection of your freedoms to others.

I don't care if I get banned from this site or not at this point, this needs saying. It's high time we as a people stood up to this tyranny going on in Washington DC. If we don't do it now and get it under control and put this Government back in it's box, violently if necessary, then we will lose every ounce of freedom we ever had.


19 posted on 06/24/2005 5:32:59 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

Okay, Freepers...so now what happens to churches? Churches don't pay taxes. Is there going to be a church property grab?


20 posted on 06/24/2005 5:33:13 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism

Can you clarify this with regard to the state of Montana? Are you saying that this SCOTUS ruling does not apply or is limited in Montana? Thanks,

21 posted on 06/24/2005 5:34:14 AM PDT by Bear_Slayer (DOC - 81 MM Mortars, Wpns Co. 2/3 KMCAS 86-89)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

So I guess China can use this ruling to buy whatever they want now, huh?


TLR


22 posted on 06/24/2005 5:34:37 AM PDT by The Last Rebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

"Why are we putting up with this?"

Because we are a nation of cowards


23 posted on 06/24/2005 5:35:31 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
"If we don't do it now and get it under control and put this Government back in it's box, violently if necessary, then we will lose every ounce of freedom we ever had."

"The tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Just paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.

Carolyn

24 posted on 06/24/2005 5:36:05 AM PDT by CDHart (The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CDHart

Amen Carolyn


25 posted on 06/24/2005 5:36:48 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Churches own some of the best real estate in downtowns. I imagine it would be very tempting to some city council/developer to take their property.


26 posted on 06/24/2005 5:38:05 AM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet
Hey, even my lib friends were incensed over this decision.

I haven't checked myself, but on another thread I saw that DU hates it and considers it a "conservative" decision!

27 posted on 06/24/2005 5:39:53 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Well said.


28 posted on 06/24/2005 5:40:07 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

"Because we are a nation of cowards."

I don't believe that for a minute. What we are is not organized.


29 posted on 06/24/2005 5:41:13 AM PDT by OpusatFR (Try permaculture and get back to the Founders intent. Mr. Jefferson lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight

Thank you for your reply.


30 posted on 06/24/2005 5:42:48 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

"Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed"


Actually, you never really OWN property here in the US. You "Buy" the right to use it, with restrictions. If you stop paying property taxes, you break the contract with the government and lose your use of the property.


31 posted on 06/24/2005 5:45:31 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

This is unbelievable. I'm still in shock, don't know what to say.

Maybe I will end up as a media created nutcase in disobedience against government special commercial interests.

Saw that one of the Connecticut homeowners, a party to the suit, is not leaving their home. Maybe I should throw it in with them.

I can see the headlines now:

"Right wing extremists holed up in comdemned home, reports of child abuse inside, Attorney General Alberto Reno orders FBI-BATF-DHS to lay siege on home."

But really I am chilled by yesterday's news. My properties are eye-candy to special interests and I can imagine they could use yesterday's decision to remove me from 'their proposed acquisition'.

I am not kidding, I may not die quietly in this life. The only thing I don't understand completely is if the action by the Connecticut authorities was to eliminate 'blight' and who is to say what is 'blight'? If my home is tidy and well kept but my neighbors are in decay, can the government remove me from my home for their 'blight'? I think that's what yesterday's message says.

Often when people take it upon themselves to clean up a 'blighted' neighborhood they are rewarded with an increase in property taxes. That happened to me. So blight in my view is linked with tax policies.

I guess if yesterday's decision is carried to its extreme, there could be riots unless eminent domain is used in small tracts where homeowners are not able to get larger communities to come to their aid.

This one has me scared. I can't imagine that all I have sweated for is at risk of takeover by the government for tax revenues. I live in an upscale waterfront mixed residential and cafe district and I can see them rezoning me as commercial and then taking over.

I have ideas of selling all and moving to Australia or New Zealand. I know that there are property rights there. Unless Americans make a successful stand against this insane ruling, many of us will have to emigrate and find a new America. Comments?


32 posted on 06/24/2005 5:48:45 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

What good would it be for State Legislatures to outlaw taking land from Private owners when rich people wishing to buy it would take the ruling to the Federal Supreme Court and have it banished , just like they did when they allowed this to begin with.

No what is needed is a wholesale uprising of taxpayers. What is needed is for no one to pay their taxes come April 15th. That will get their attention.


33 posted on 06/24/2005 5:49:50 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

I'd like to see the homes of the justices be bulldozed, but we all know that ain't going to happen.


34 posted on 06/24/2005 5:53:01 AM PDT by AK-47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

Boortz knocks another one out of the ballpark.


35 posted on 06/24/2005 5:53:23 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Then let's GET organized.

What irritates me to no end is some of our national "leaders" alleged Conservatives, have set squat about this issue. The Rank and file have talked about almost nothing else since the ruling came out. But our leaders? Mum


36 posted on 06/24/2005 5:54:04 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
As with most other things I strongly agree with Boortz on this. If there has ever been cause for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse a court this is it! The movement should start now.
37 posted on 06/24/2005 5:55:09 AM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maryz
"I haven't checked myself, but on another thread I saw the DU hates it and considers it a "conservative"decision."

The decision was made by liberal judges and they blame conservatives, now that is a typically liberal mentality.

This is what happens when you get people appointed for life to a position this important, they become dictators. Get rid of these senile SOB's and get some new blood in there and shorten their tenure.
38 posted on 06/24/2005 5:57:24 AM PDT by Americanexpat (A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law.

Even enhanced state protections of private property won't protect a against eminent domain takings by the federal government or the UN!

39 posted on 06/24/2005 5:57:33 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

What can be done down the road to reverse this nonsense?


40 posted on 06/24/2005 5:57:48 AM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

Seems the second ammendment is about all we have left.

If you wanna get really steamed, go read Jonathan Adler's ramblings over in the Corrner on NRO. Seems he thinks property owners did pretty well in this case and that we should be pleased we at least got 4 justices on our side.

Please excuse me -- I feel a strange urge clean my gun.

This was from Cosmo...which is funny because in another post on this topic I had commented on one of the MANY reasons people from Europe flocked to America.

Of the reasons to brave treacherous seas and leave behind family ties and other possible monetary futures was to get away from " First Born " son rule in England and Europe!
So that ANYONE regaurdless of FAMILY CONNECTIONS or Leneage could OWN their land! ( and of course freedom OF religion ..)

And that the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Admendment to let the citizens be able to protect itself FROM the Government! from unduly seizing land, property, and housing froeign troops.

Will "rich" developers who happen to be REPUBLICAN go on NOW and call 2nd Amendment supporters " Gun Nuts " like the left does now??


41 posted on 06/24/2005 5:59:07 AM PDT by AirBorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3239023

Texas might try to ban this at the state level. Let's hope they and others have the courage to see it through.
42 posted on 06/24/2005 6:00:27 AM PDT by Bring Back Old Sparky (Teddy Kennedy: Drink! Drive! Swim for your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

My piddling contribution to this homeowner revolution is this: We don't need a hanging, nor a revolution. What we need is a simple constitutional amendment to reverse the "Boss Hogg Decision" as someone nicknamed it over on Free Republic.

"Resolved: no government, agency, district, or authority, nor any such entity created under the authority of same, whether public or private, shall have the authority to compel any owner of a property, whether real or virtual, movable or not, to sell same to any other entity, whether public or private, by use of any application or form of law, duress, coercement, or mandate."

Our governments, state, federal, and local, have shown that they cannot be trusted with the power of eminent domain. It's time to take it away from them.

http://www.houblog.com


43 posted on 06/24/2005 6:04:13 AM PDT by ubu (At the core of anyone's hatred of a thing is found a hatred of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard

bump


44 posted on 06/24/2005 6:06:12 AM PDT by Centurion2000 ("THE REDNECK PROBLEM" ..... we prefer the term, "Agro-Americans")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AK-47

I'm for starting a movement that for every low-income area of the city or county that gets taken and bulldozed, there should be a wealthy person's home, business or property seized "for the common good"...if nothing else to build a park or nature preserve. Because the law treats everyone equally according to the Constitution, this should be accepted by the courts....and this would end this disasterous plunder of private property. The Bible warns of the harsh punishment God exacts from those that take widows' houses. And He is the real Supreme Court.


45 posted on 06/24/2005 6:06:50 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death

We can debate what it means to 'own' but your point is better put in the context of how people in government agencies view property 'owners'.

I know for a fact as I have heard them whisper that property 'owners' are viewed as 'tenants' because tenants come and go whereas government goes on forever.


46 posted on 06/24/2005 6:06:52 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AirBorn

What gives you the idea that only Republicans are rich and that only Republicans benefit from this stupid decision.

This decision screws Americans both Dems and Pubbies and believe me Democrats, although they lie like hell, are the richest politicians in the Congress.


47 posted on 06/24/2005 6:08:46 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ubu

If we can get that into the Constitution that would be a good start. However, the SCOTUS has ignored the Constitution recently, so I do not have much hope that an amendment will do the trick.

However, stringing a few of them up for the rest to get the message that our Freedoms and our Rights will NOT be trifled with might.


48 posted on 06/24/2005 6:10:39 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
How do you go about having this ruling overturned? Is that possible?

There are two organizations that we should ALL contact them to see if a civil suit can be brought against the SCOTUS:

CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

American Center for Law and Justice

49 posted on 06/24/2005 6:16:14 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ubu
the "Boss Hogg Decision"

What a perfect description of it!

50 posted on 06/24/2005 6:18:33 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson