We must show that no one is above law

I would like to respond to Jim Thompson ("Weare must not look to punish Souter,"Monitor, Jan. 11) and clarify a few things for Weare voters.

It is not only my assumption that most people in Weare oppose the abuse of eminent domain for economic development but also a fact: UNH conducted a poll, and over 90 percent are against it.

I don't think readers of this paper need a civics lesson on how a bill becomes law or on the role of the courts. The ones requiring lessons are the politicians and judges. They seem to have forgotten who is sovereign, and it is time we reminded them.

If we succeed in applying Justice Souter's own ruling to him directly, we will prove nobody is above the law, not even a Supreme Court judge. That message will be heard loud and clear across the nation, and those in positions of power might think twice before cavalierly deciding to take away people's rights.

The Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights is a nonprofit organization born from a local grassroots movement in Weare and made up of Weare citizens. We are holding a rally for the American dream this weekend.

On Saturday we meet to organize our door-to-door campaign that afternoon. Sunday we rally at 1 p.m. the Old Town Hall. The rally will have guest speakers from New London, Conn., who will explain firsthand what this decision and our local efforts mean to them. We have also invited the radical from California, Logan Clements, to join us and speak.

The day will be a celebration of American freedom and fun, complete with live musical entertainment. I hope to see everyone there - even you, Jim.

The ones requiring lessons are the politicians and judges. They seem to have forgotten who is sovereign, and it is time we reminded them.
-----
We are a bit hamstrung by the fact that half the Congress is a bunch of socialists that just love the abuse of Constitutional power...ala eminent domain. Only the Congress at this juncture, can limit the scope of influence of the SCOTUS on specific issues, and it is my hope that when Alito joins the court, that this ONEROUS decision, driven by the Marxists on the SCOTUS will be OVERTURNED!!! Let's pray for that!

Before the gentle reader blows his or her gaskets, please realize, first, that I am only telling the historical truth as best I know how, and second, that I am not a fan of Kelo. This will be clear by the end of my very short essay.

Constitutional Original Intent in regards to "eminent domain" is just what Kelo vs City of New London says. Eminent domain has been a sovereign right for over a thousand years and was a right of sovereignty in 1780. If you read the Founding documents you will see that Original Intent weas that the Several States are Sovereign. Not the "People", and not the Federal Governments. This is what the word "State" means. "State" does not mean an administrative district, a province, but instead "State" means a sovereign entity.

If the US Supreme Court can say that the States are not sovereign (which the Supreme Court has done in innumerable cases - the concept is called "incorporation") then the Federal Government is sovereign. This business of "The People are Sovereign" is attractive for many but has no legal or historical validity. The Feds' are sovereign, and we are the Feds subjects.

Simple historical, if unpleasant, truth. The stuff you got in grade school stating otherwise is baloney.

In regards to this issue,what one needs to remember about the KELO case is that the "right of eminent domain" is nothing new. What was done, because of KELO was to set a standard, or legal precedent, that says; essentially, that economic benefit to the community can now be considered as a justification for the taking of private property. Of course, a reasonable value to the existing owners as compensation is also part and parcel of this. Almost immediately, those of quite deceitful motivation, in various parts of the country started to jump on this 'opening of the door of opportunism' and now we have glaring examples of widespead abuse of the "intent" of this questionable ruling of the high court. None is more obvious and blatant than that described herein>>>
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm

I support what is being attempted in New Hampshire, because there are those few times when contary to the writer's assertion that "two wrongs don't make a right" that such a case can be used as the political motivation for congress to act. That is the key here. We are waging a great battle currently to strike a better balance on the high court and discourage legislating from the bench. As I read some posts on this thread it becomes obvious that too many of us think that with a "new look" USSC, all we be corrected. Nothing could be more incorrect! Laws are NOT changed by the USSC over-ruling itself, they are changed by the congress assuming their constitutional obligation. Simultaneous to supporting the New Hampshire endeavor, we MUST put pressure on the gutless politicans who, without such pressure, will continue sitting on their collective hands. It is quite easy to construct and send off an email to your senators/representatives, for it is they who bear the constitutional authority and obligation for AMENDING the law of eminent domain.

Though it is generally true that "Two wrongs don't make a right" it is equally true to observe that "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"!

Make no mistake about how critical this issue is to our way of life. The law must be amended to have a much more restrictive interpretation than the mere 'economic benefit to the community' for under that w-i-d-e requirement many of us could lose our own private property and very homes to the wiles of a bunch of shrewd, connivng attorneys and their sponsor enabler.

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.