Posted on 07/30/2007 7:25:44 AM PDT by SE Mom
But before the 20th century and even after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. SCOTUS did not determine the 5th applied until 1898 and the 1st applied until 1925, and many of the other Amendments until the 1930s (after FDR's court stacking)
The way it is now, people can't tell whom to hold accountable when those rights are abused which only allows it to continue and exacerbate.
... or maybe we need another amendment to set it one way or the other. ... but it would probably take to much brain energy for our uneducated population to really understand the pros and cons. sigh!
Well we did have the 10th. And frankly the Republicans just ignored that first time through. The 14th wasn't understood to incorporate the others except perhaps by the Radical Republicans. And even then it took close to 50 years for it to incorporate the others. Frankly I have no problem in theory with the Bill of Rights being incorporated. Except like in the case of the 1st, the ACLU runs to it everytime a small town decides to hang a picture of Jesus, Robert E. Lee, or the Ten Commandments in or near their city hall
You are right. To explain it to today's population would take years to undo what's been done in the name of 'good intentions'
The 5th and 14th don't vest powers, they limit them. So does the 10th.
Well, technically BOTH are under Congress' purview, since Congress has origination on legislation, including legislation on spending.
No, they have "All legislative Powers herein [the Constitution] granted". Those powers are listed specifically in Article 1, Sec 8. Nor do they have the power of the purse over State matters, only Federal, and that is "...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..." Witholding funding to compel States to abide by Federal rules does neither of these functions.
...Congress can certainly use its purse powers for the protection of our natural property rights.
How? How does Federal spending or not spending money protect your natural property rights?
I would say that the SCOTUS was wrong, then. That last clause "violation of equal protection of a US citizen" is what applies here - that equal protection is specifically grant for property rights by the 14th amendment.
I agree they were wrong, but not because of an equal protection violation. All citizens are equally at risk for eminent domain takings. It is only if it can be proved that some citizens are treated differently under the law than others that the equal protection clause is violated.
What I think was violated was the 5th's clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Reselling to another private concern does not constitute "public use", IMO. But, only 4 of the 9 saw it my way. The majority said it was up to the States to define "public use" more strictly if they wanted to stop these takings.
My point is that, despite the Court decision, it is my understanding that Congress is well within its rights to pass law which contrafutes the Court's opinion, by specifically appealing to the Constitution.
Maybe for future cases, but they can't create an ex post facto law. But, I believe that in the Kelo v New London case, the State was a party, thus giving the SC original jurisdiction, not subject to Congress. It didn't go through a Federal appeal. It went from the CT SC directly to the USSC.
The point is that a Constitutional originalist would probably say that Kelo was a bad ruling, because it redefined the term “public use” in a way that the Founders very likely did not intend. So, it’s an appropriately federalist action for the Congress to discourage state infringement of inalienable rights that are protected by the US Constitution, bad SCOTUS ruling notwithstanding. The Founders set up a system of co-equal branches and checks and balances — ergo the Congress does not have to accept as gospel a Supreme Court ruling that so obviously flies in the face of our natural rights.
To your question of tactics, an economic threat is probably the quickest and most direct way the legislative branch can discourage state infringement of the fifth amendment. I don’t see it as a case of “economic blackmail,” for this reason: ultimately the money that feeds both state and federal government is our money. In this particular case, states want to use our money to steal our property; the feds want to use our money to discourage the states from stealing our property. I say the latter is a more appropriate use. I don’t in any way think this is the answer to the problem — but it’s a start.
You know what’s great about FR? When we have disagreements, we dig into the minutiae of the Constitution instead of breaking out the profanity.
I very much support Thompson, but I do think it’s sad how much flak Dr. Paul gets around here. I think Paul is not at all realistic about the Islamofascist threat — but I will always respect his reverence for the Constitution and our Founders. Considering that Paul has been a long-time leader in the fight against eminent domain thievery, it’s distasteful to me to see Ron Paul mockery on this particular thread. At least give the guy credit where credit is due — he’s been fighting a lonely battle against this crap in DC.
The problem is that you're assuming that Congress has no recourse for dealing with a bad SCOTUS decision short of a Constitutional amendment. This just isn't so -- the Founders gave us a government with co-equal branches and the expectation that each would use its power to check the others. That's what's happening here -- Congress is using its Constitutional power of the purse to check a bad court ruling. Sure, they often use the power of the purse for bad purposes -- that doesn't at all mean that they shouldn't use it for good purpose when they have the proper Constitutional authority to do so.
Damn right! :) I was thinking the same thing. This has been a very interesting exchange.
I understand...and I apologize if I’m being a wet blanket. :)
The real stuff does seem over the top. However, we all have our own personal idiosyncracies about what we like/dislike in a candidate...the only criticisms that really rub me the wrong way are the ones coming from folks whose own candidates are guilty of what they’re attacking Thompson for.
Wow, that was a convoluted sentence I just wrote.
But yes, I agree with what you are saying, and in some small way that’s why I make fun.
The guy is an open-borders, Hizbollah-supporting, RINO louse and should not serve in ANY capacity. So please stop trying to obfuscate. It 'aint workin', in case you haven't noticed from other threads.
That's quite a post coming from someone who's been on this forum 7 years less than me. Your childish snipes are really just boring at this point. If you have nothing substantive to offer, please just go away.
No, they aren't. The ruling remains in force, while the Congress muddies the waters by using the power of the purse to influence State legislative jurisdictions. They aren't effecting the Court at all, and besides, that is not what the PotP is for.
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.