While you weren't looking...

While you weren't looking, the United States Supreme Court decided on June 23 that the government could disregard the Fifth Amendmant to the constitution. I'm not talking about the part of the Fifth Amendment most people immediately think about involving court and trials and someone saying, "I'd like to take the fifth on that, your honor," so they don't screw up and confess something and send themselves to jail. There's another part to the fifth amendment (commonly referred to as imminant domain) that deals with property rights, to whit (that sounded legal, didn't it) to whit, a person can't be compelled to be a witness against himself blah, blah, blah, ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." If you're familiar with imminant domain, it's probably because some cousin of yours owns a home beside the highway and TDOT turned it into a four lane, paid him $10,000 or $20,000 for his front yard, and now he has to look both ways before opening his front door.
The key phrase in dealing with imminant domain has always been (always being since 1787 or so) "...taken for public use without just compensation." Public use (until June 23, 2005) has meant use by the government or public services (roads, railways, airports, schools etc, etc...) but now (according to the Supreme Court)....now it means Private Citizen A's land (land he or his family may have owned for generations) can be taken by the government (county, city, state or federal...doens't matter) for just compensation or even simply condemned (which is another sack full of squirrels) and sold or given to Private Citizen B, because B is going to build a hotel or company headquarters of even a WalMart, that will generate more tax revenue or create some jobs. It doesn't matter if Private Citizen A has kept his land in good repair and paid his taxes. Private Citizen B can now go to the county/city/state government and say, "That piece of property right there would be perfect for a (insert whatever Citizen B happens to build or own), but Citizen A won't sell it to me. Now if I owned it, that property would generate X amount more tax dollars and at the same time, I'd have to hire a whole bunch of people to knock down his home and build my ACME gunpowder headquarters."
"You don't say," says the city council. "How much did you offer Citizen A?"
"$X," says Citizen B.
"Well," says the city council, "if you're ACME headquarters is going to bring in that much money in taxes and jobs, it's got to be in the public's best interest to condemn his property, offer him half as much, then give it to you."
"That's what I was thinking," say Citizen B.
Does that sound crazy? Well it is! But that's what is now legal according to the Supreme Court and that's exactly what's happened in New London, Connecticut to six homeowners who liked their beach front homes and didn't want to sell them so Pfizer could put up a corporate headquarters with an ocean view and condos for their employees so they'd be happy making Viagra. Kelo Vs. New London http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
The only bright spot to this entire mess, this ridiculous interpretation of the constitution by five out of their right mind judges is that they left in a loop hole that allows county/city/state govenments to specifically write laws that prohibit governments from taking land from Private Citizen A and giving it to Private Citizen B. If this seems utterly insane to you, before the last 4th of July hotdog or hamburger is digested, call/write/fax and email your state representatives and senators and demand they sponsor a bill saying exactly that before they take their next bribe. Or maybe you don't care that while young men and women are dying for our freedom and liberty, the Supreme Court (And the Patriot Act and geez...what else) is systematically stripping our all our rights away. It's a good thing we still have the Second Amendment. But for how long?
That's my stinking opinion
Have the day of your choice,
SSG JDale
"Those who are willing to give up essential freedom for a little safety, deserve neither."
Benjamin Franklin

1 Comments:
No kidding...and to think we went to war with our own king and country and declared independence over a 1% tax increase, and on PRINCIPLE! It seems that today we have sold out for far much less.
Unfortunately, where people once cared for restrictions upon government power, they see only possibilities of raiding its treasury in order to have their votes purchesed.
I'll even go a step further and say that it is precisely the result of secularism that started the slide down this slippery slope. We once considered the rights of mankind sacred simply because NO man could give them, and that NO man could take them away. These rights were given by a soveriegn God. That was the primary argument against slavery, all property rights and "just compensation" aside.
Yet, we have declared ourselves God, and some have set themselves above the rest of society as their "betters," and can only justly rule because only they have the capacity to do so. Their philosophy, in short: "The pesantry cannot take care of themselves."
Socialism is the natural end result of secular humansim, where people assume the duties of what was once reserved for God. They dispense "special" rights and privileges to various groups and patrons as they wish. They also dispense "special" restrictions against those with whom they disagree. The end result of this is a complete lack of freedom, except for those special patrons. This is par for the course in most socialized nations, including the Nazi state and all Communist nations.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had enough life experiences and education after declaring independence, a revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the drawing of our current Constitution.
Post a Comment
<< Home