Thanx for the ping Army Air Corps !
Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 01/09/2012 6:55:59 PM PST by tobyhill
Thanks Baynative.
I operating under the premise that eventually the unintended consequences will convince them otherwise, and I’m going to help that along every chance I get.
Fifth Amendment: “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...”
The questions before the court is whether this is:
a. being deprived of property, and (if so)
b. does “due process of law” include the right to a hearing in a court of law?
In the past, the Court has ruled that limiting a property’s use due to wetlands, zoning restrictions, or other limitations, is not a “taking” since it does not deprive the owner of all uses. However, in this case, fines of $37,500 per day and a permit costing 12 times the $23,000 purchase price of the land may be a “taking”.
They’re poking at the symptoms. We need to go stomp on the problem.
bfl
Precisely the problem. As, so well documented in the "Failure Factory" by Bill Gertz.
I propose the next President implement the rubber room concept from the NY public schools. The civil service has a right to a lifetime job, but, not that job. Transfer them to a job where the only thing they have to is show up, no phones, no personal phones. Failure to show up is cause for dismissal. It is cheaper to pay them to do nothing, than, to screw things up. My first thought was a fenced in college campus in Vermont, but, it is becoming evident that Gitmo is increasingly less occupied.
Since the EPA has essentially told the Supremes that they don’t have the right to serve as a check and balance on the decisions of the Executive Branch, it is in the Court’s self-interest to find this case in favor of the property owners. I predict a ruling in favor of the Sacketts.
“We need to overturn Wickard, and get rid of everything Congress has done that relies solely on these claims of “finding a substantial effect on interstate commerce”. “
I would leave one part in place - I would use the Commerce Clause to stop states from cleaning out pass-through drivers (like Delaware does). I think that was the intent of the clause in the first place...and to prevent state-by-state tariffs on each other.
TL: When Congress passed the Environmental Protection Act, they claimed authority under the Commerce Clause, claiming to find that air pollution has a "substantial effect on interstate commerce".
Many of the enabling statutes upon which the EPA relies, (such as the ESA) cite treaties for their authority.
Those are the key words. It is their property, not the EPA's property. As long as they are not hurting anyone else's property, the EPA needs to back off.
An answer is also in the opening sentence of Article III. Our judiciary has the sole power to judge.
For EPA to write its laws, enforce its laws and judge its laws is the very definition of tyranny. They should not have any penalty power whatsoever.
Thanx for the ping Army Air Corps !
It was indeed. Most of the problems we have with the federal government can be fixed by simply making them comply with the original intent of the Constitution. They still can and should be expected to do what they were authorized to do within the original intent of that grant of power. That would be one of those things.
Congress can not do by treaty what it is not authorized to do absent the treaty. All the powers the federal government has are given to them by the States. Congress cannot negotiate with foreign governments to acquire power, because no foreign government has the authority to grant it any power. Only the States can do that.
NEWT!
That is what we are led to believe all righty. It may not be true. Not a one has ever been struck down by the courts. For example: The main treaty underlying the ESA has been on the books for seventy years and it wildly exceed Constitutional limitations on Congress.
I wonder why the EPA didn’t show up at the WH to make Moochelle fill in that garden and return it to it’s normal state. After all, dangerous substances are in the ground and the food she grows.
It’s outrageous.
We’ve donated to the Pacific Legal Fund for years. They fight this kind of malignant governmental overreach all the time. Take a look at their site for great info.
The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government that are granted to it by the States. It is incumbent upon the States to insure that it stays within those limits. It codifies explicitly what the federal government is authorized to do, and implicitly what the States are justified in resisting, and if necessary going to war over to keep it within those limits.
I thought some of the cross was interesting, though any long-time court watcher will tell you that you can't necessarily discern how a Justice will vote based on questions made during orals. Several like to play devil's advocate. As usual, Thomas didn't ask any questions, as is generally his way. I've read that he considers orals to be more theater than substance.
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.