Posted on 06/25/2005 12:42:58 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
"Liberal" Justices Turn Back Clock...To the Year 1215
Thomas M. Sipos
You no longer own your own home or have the right to buy one. This is due to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, approved June 23. No, this amendment didn't pass both houses of Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures, in what is whimsically termed "the amendment process." Rather, our Constitution was amended in the usual way, by judicial fiat. In essence, five Supreme Court justices -- John Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy -- voted that you no longer own your own home. That's the result of Kelo v. City of New London, in which, according to dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas: "The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."
That's right. A whole Constitutional clause, a clause that protected your property from arbitrary government expropriation, erased by five justices. At least with flag burning, the issue is undergoing the official amendment process.
But to understand Kelo, let me first give you some historical background. Back in olden days, all land was owned by a "sovereign," that is, a king, tsar, pope, or emperor. This sovereign leased his land to vassals, i.e., lords, barons, knights, and other titled nobility. Vassals could use the land so long as they served the sovereign. (See the bargain struck in the movie, Excalibur.) Because the sovereign owned the land, he could always repossess it.
In 1215, the English nobles decided this was a bad deal. They asked King John to sign Magna Carta, restricting his ability to reclaim the land. King John agreed, mostly because the nobles had brought plenty of swords. Peasants still owned no land, but the times, they were a changin'.
A big change occurred in 1776, when Americans decided that "the people" were sovereign, owning the land and the powers to govern it and themselves. In 1789, they delegated some of those powers to the government via the Constitution, while also restricting those powers through the ten Bill of Rights. For instance, the Fifth Amendment says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Thus, "the people," being sovereign and owning all the land, can, through their elected representatives, take your property, but only if (1) the taking is for a "public use" (traditionally, a road, school, or other public project), and (2) you're paid "just compensation" (theoretically, fair market value).
With Kelo, according to Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court "erased" the Public Use Clause. Now government can take your property for any reason at all.
In Kelo, the city of New London, CT, had condemned 15 homes so that private developers may build offices, a hotel, pricier homes, and a pedestrian path along the Thames River. The homeowners sued the city, trying to save their homes by arguing that private development was not a public use. The city said it was, because offices and pricier homes would generate more tax revenue.
The Supreme Court agreed with the city.
Justice Stevens wrote: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government. ... [T]here is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
But if private use is a public use, and public use is a public use, then everything is a public use -- and the Public Use Clause has no meaning. As Justice O'Connor said in her dissent: "Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property? ... Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded. ... Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Is she right? With the Public Use Clause erased, what will prevent the state from replacing any home or business with a "nicer" business? Nothing but the good intentions of back room politicians. Seriously. According to Justice Stevens, the very cities and states condemning the land can best determine "local public needs," and their judgements are "entitled to our deference."
That's like letting the accused decide whether he's guilty.
The result is that politically-connected developers can now use state muscle to force those of modest income to sell their homes at below market rates, while wealthy homeowners are protected by their own political clout. (I say "at below market rates," because if developers paid homeowners their asking price -- the true definition of "market rate" -- there'd be no need to condemn land, as every owner has his price). As Justice O'Connor put it: "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."
So it seems the times are a changin' again. Only now we're going backwards, to about 1215, when only nobles could protect their land from the king, the peasants at the mercy of both. And ironically, it's the more "liberal" justices who are turning back the clock.
Yep, we're all serfs again.
The Constitution is on its last legs. Basically, it means nothing. I'm sure that the Court will eventually overrule this. It's one of the stupidest decisions in its history. But when it does, it will ensure that the Constitution means even less.
Re: "The last time folks tried that, both sides had muskets and cannon.
This time one side has small arms and the other has Apaches."
I advocate nothing but allow me to point out the Military has Apaches not the courts and not the Congress and for that matter not even the White House. Aside from Generals, and Admirals, who are well connected and have every reason to side with the powers that be they may have even more reason to side with the middle class in the country (the reasons I say this should be obvious) As for all other officers and and the Enlisted they are almost to a man or woman a part of the poor or middle class.
They may be very hesitant to fire on fellow Americans, depending on the issue that has the unwashed out in force with torches and pitchforks.
My first thought is that we should take away the Kerry and Kennedy mansions, and the Clinton mansion.
The House impeaches; the Senate convicts. We have about a 0.00% chance of either happening and that's being kind to the House as compared to the Senate who are in the negatives.
read later. Glad we are still talking about this.
i'm sure this has been considered -- looking over the last 200 years who is considering the possibility that our form/structure of government is seriously flawed when it comes to the courts?
i'm not asking whimsically... is there a group, a think tank, etc. that someone can point me to on articles/discussions along these lines?
our founders may have formed "a more perfect government" but it certainly is showing its weaknesses (i.e. congress standing up to the courts over the constitution).
"The Road to Serfdom"
Best.
Political.
Treatise.
Ever.
/.02
Yes, I realize that the house impeaches, I just got carried away. This decision really irritates the hell out of me. Thanks for the reply, and I also know it will be a cold day in hell before our spineless congress impeaches these jerks.
Actually, I don't think of it as an imperfect system, the mechanisms are there. The problem is, politicians do not have the balls to use the rules they have at their disposal. Take for instance the Senate with the Bolton Nomination. The weak Republican Seven who are trying to look thoughtful are preventing those who would like to force the up or down vote. It's a case of a few whimps preventing the bold action necessary.
I was young and dumb then. I was even a Democrat at that time because my parents were. I changed fast after however. I have matured, in age as well as mentality and I now have nothing to lose. Life itself is worthless unless you have the freedom to enjoy it, something a lot of people don't realize. When I say I will die for the constitution, I mean it. I carry every day, I have a permit, but I will carry if they deny me the permit and if they come to get the guns they will suffer for it even though I will probably die.
This is my creed, my life since about 1984.
I have fought the good fight politically and now I am ready to do the deed physically if need bed.
However, I think we can turn this thing around without violence and I think it can be done with the help of the Dems. They are as upset as we are. Some are stunned about this decision and see that the liberals are the ones who did it. It is amazing the reaction I have seen in my liberal friends( well, maybe not exactly "friends").
Good post.
Supreme Court appointments are often a roll of the dice: two of the five voting with the majority on this decision were David Souter: appointed by George HW Bush and Anthony Kennedy: appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Its often hard to tell in advance how either of them will vote on any particular issue: sometimes they're conservatives, mainly they're moderates and sometimes they're liberals.
Actually, there's a difference between being politically or socially conservative or liberal, versus the judicial definition.
Judicial liberals believe that the Constitution is a living document, and means what they want it to mean. Judicial conservatives believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.
This ruling IS a liberal ruling.
Mark
Two suggestions, hard to implement.
1. The judges have been pressed into making new law since congress makes tons of law, but ignores its mistakes and leaves bad law on the books.
Needed: The Uncongress.
Any computer user has come to learn the utility, yea the necessity of the UNDO button. The human body has scavenger cells that circulate and remove dead tissue. At present the courts have taken over the job of relegislating the law, and are doing a bad job of it, being insulated from popular will. Congress should be repealing bad law. But they are too busy making new law.
Suggestion: The Uncongress. Its members campaign and are elected like congress, but their purpose is not new law, but to repeal remove delete old or bad law. Say any law two years old for which the passage of time has made it clear that the law was not so bright is eligible for uncongress repeal. Congress could reenact the law immediately, and another two years would need to pass before uncongress could remove it.
2. Airline pilots get regularly reexamined as to their intellectual and physical health to make sure they are competent to fly an airplane with many lives aboard.
Require sitting judges to be reconfirmed every 4 or 5 years after age 65. No state issues driver's licences good for life.
I agree; it heartens me that even DU can see the gross injustice of this.
You are 100% correct. Our rulers in both parties are for this. They will do nothing about it unless they have to. The system has passed the point of no return.
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.