Memorize it, pal. Clueless? Yes, you are. Here's the deal, fool. They pass a law, you break it, you are now a criminal. Even if the law is foolish. Wise up.
You are now on ignore.
Posted on 10/22/2007 10:35:32 AM PDT by khnyny
"[T]he right of acquiring and possessing property and having it protected, is one of the natural inherent and unalienable rights of man."[1]
A few years ago, one noted political reformer applauded the "demise of property as a formal constitutional limit." A new view of the right to property had, in this author's opinion, begun to replace the old constitutional formalism of the inviolable and sacred right to property. Indeed, this new conception of property "requires incursions on traditional property rights. What once defined the limits to governmental power becomes the prime subject of affirmative governmental action."[2] The object or purpose of governmental action should be the various kinds of "redistribution" that characterize the "regulatory welfare state."[3] And, this commentator concludes, "[o]nce redistribution can be held out as a public purpose, it is difficult to see how lines can be drawn defining some redistribution as, in principle, too much or the wrong kind."[4] This view of the redistributionist state--the welfare state--is premised on the discovery that the right to property is not, as Madison and the framers believed, a natural right; it is merely a "social construct."[5] As such, it has no greater value than any other social construct. And like any mere construct, it can be put in the service of human progress--a progress that is not limited by "deeply problematic" notions of "natural rights" or "limited government."[6] "It is now widely accepted," this prognosticator concludes, "that property is not a limit to legitimate governmental action, but a primary subject of it."[7] At the time, these views seemed wildly inflated--mere wishful thinking on the part of an intellectual searching for "a new conceptual framework."[8] The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), brings these comments and their rejection of the views of the American Founders--
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
Thanks for your thought provoking response. It compelled me to take a look at Webster’s Dictionary.
1. A definition of reasonable (adjective)-”able to reason”.
2. A definition of rational (adjective) -”able to reason”.
So it would appear from this that being reasonable and rational are the same thing.
Now maybe your right if being “able to reason” is a necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT condition to being reasonable. It seems to me that to be reasonable one must not only be able to reason logically, but must be WILLING to do so.
Shysters get what they want by refusing to be rational when it suits them. Rational people CAN interpret Article five so that “private” means “private” and “public use” is not the same as “public purpose”. A judge who is able to reason but has no integrity is going to weasel word a constitutional amendment to mean what he would like it to mean. I think that’s malfeasance “wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official”. Doesn’t this call for impeachment? “To bring a public official before the proper tribunal on a charge of wrongdoing”.
What’s the proper tribunal here? Or do we have the fox guarding the chicken coop?
Of course they - the government - can. It is illegal to serve food with trans-fats in New York, for example.
Serious talks about taxation of Ding Dongs to the extent of cigarettes has been going on for a while.
Who would have thought that the Land of the Free would ban the citizens choice to eat what they want.
How, pray tell, will they accomplish that? Send someone to your house every day at meal times?
How come I have a friend in Weston, MA whose deed traces back to John Adams before the Revolution?
By only allowing what they want me to have to be available for consumption.
PING!
Key word is explicit. IANAL, but I believe there are many rights that are not explicit in the Constitution....no?
The FedGov has made both heroin and weed “unavailable” for consumption for over 70 years, yet I can get either one with a single phone call.
dude, give it a rest here. You can get stuff like that here because we still live in a free country. Socialism is a whole different animal. All you have to do is pay attention...you will see. Just keep letting the Dems run things. Pretty soon they will run you too.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Why doesnt the govt just grab all the land they need to build the fence?
You don't have a clue... You think that all they have to do is pass a law, put it in gold-embossed leather bound books in a law library and the proscribed behavior won't occur any more?
The history of America says different.
Memorize it, pal. Clueless? Yes, you are. Here's the deal, fool. They pass a law, you break it, you are now a criminal. Even if the law is foolish. Wise up.
You are now on ignore.
Terri Schivo is unavailable for comment.
That’s the problem. People read until they have a complete thought, and stop before they have the complete thnought.
Most of what is missing explicitly is to be found explicitly in the case law. For example, the Modern American Corporation is a person and can legally own another person. This is not explicit in the XIVth Amend, but is implicitly there enough that case law has established the legal validity of private property in that circumstance.
Incomprehensible...
Are you talking legally or effectively?!?
It's not clear what you are arguing. Are you saying that there's no private property right because it's not explicit, or that Dr. Eder's point is invalid because the body of case law prevents Kelo from having the effect he claims, or what...?
It’s legal. That was the point awarded in the case where a Corp wanted to buy part ownership in another Corp and the State legislature of Pennsylvania let it slide through because they weren’t paying attention. Delaware was involved, too. Funny they created that right after ownership of persons had just been settled by the outcome of the Civil War.
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.