Posted on 12/03/2009 5:44:52 PM PST by Kaslin
Eminent Domain: Four years after the Supreme Court told a Connecticut homeowner that no one's house is safe from developers, Brooklyn homeowners may lose their homes to a pro basketball team.
On June 3, 2005, by a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively repealed the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, deciding that your constitutional right to be secure in your home didn't matter if your state or community decided your property could produce more revenue as a shopping mall or condominium development.
Pfizer coveted Susette Kelo's working-class neighborhood for an office park and condominium complex. The city fathers of New London, Conn., salivated over the prospect of new and robust tax revenues and worked to make that happen despite the resistance of Kelo and her neighbors. Kelo's little pink house stood in the way.
The bitter irony here is the land seized through this gross misuse of eminent domain remains undeveloped. The bulldozers have left and so has Pfizer, which is closing its research center in New London and relocating its 1,500 jobs. The site of Kelo's house is vacant.
Before Kelo, eminent domain could be used to take property only if the property owner was compensated at fair market value and there was a valid "public use" such as a courthouse or a highway, something that would benefit the community as a whole.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Well, I am a Republican and I am for personal rights via the Constitution so I am vaccinated against such eminent domain issues....
I'm safe. /s
Evil and unconstitutional.
Modern day liberal political dogma.
Where's the check on SCOTUS? It's clearly not in the ballot box!
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
I’m thinking of repealing this travesty using the third amendment. Consider this: If , even in time of war fought on our soil, your house cannot be used to station troops, then how can the worse outcome of tearing it down for the less important reason of higher tax values be constitutional?
From : NotInTexas.org
Call to Action - Letter to Texas state politicians
To Texas State Representative,
You are my representative in the Texas State Government and I am asking you to represent me in the attack of the federal government against my personal liberties. I am asking you to stand up to for freedom and express to the United States Government that when they overstep Constitutional authority, Texas will not fall victim to their tyranny.
In San Antonio is a monument to freedom that has never been matched; the courage of the men and women there in that mission has never been replicated. The dire situation that was upon Texas in 1836 is slowly returning, but by no stretch is it to the magnitude that causes battles such as The Alamo. The growth of the federal government and the slow method at which they have been taking our freedom is spinning out of control.
As a citizen of Texas, I want you to know that I am afraid of the steps the federal government is taking to compromise my freedom. I am also worried about the steps the federal government is taking to bypass the Constitution that was designed to protect me. I am signing this petition to ask you to protect me from the federal government. Sign a resolution of nullification for all legislation passed by the United States Government starting as soon as the resolution is signed. Write a resolution that states that any bill passed will not become law in Texas without the Texas Government passing the law. The resolution must also say that the Texas Government is not to change any meetings and must adhere to the State Constitution’s meeting schedule. Under the powers of the Tenth Amendment, Texas reserves the right to accept and reject all federal legislation.
Also, I know that you cannot meet in session until 2011 without a Special Session called by Governor Perry, I am asking you as my representative to request one be called. I am also asking you to have the resolution ready to be entered into both houses with the same language to smooth out this process as quickly as possible. This is necessary to ensure my freedoms and yours, so act with haste.
Sincerely,
Even then, it has to be done per provisions of law.
Most folks think this has something to do with garrisoning troops. However, it's about religious freedom. Louis XIV, an authentic tyrant, decided everybody should attend the same church as himself. Accordingly, he prohibited Protestants from attending their separate churches.
One of the ways he sought to enforce his edicts called the Dragonettes Orders was to send troops into the homes of people who would not conform. There they were allowed to eat the food, use the property, rape the women, and do all sorts of vicious acts until the owner recanted and began going to the church required by law.
Obviously during a time of war even a tyrant might well have other things on his mind, and the troops might well be defending the homeowners whom they would otherwise be abusing.
I stand corrected! My argument still holds though. Taking away your home is worse than stationing troops inside.
In the time of Louis XIV it meant the same thing.
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.