« Flight Controllers at DFW have routinely covered up near collisions for 7 years | Main | Fighting Eminent Domain »
June 24, 2005
Eminent Domain - The Supreme Court lays an egg
The Supreme Court of the land has spoken. In the case of Susette Kelo vs. The City of New London, Connecticut, the court ruled 5/4 that cities can legally use Eminent Domain to steal private property from citizens for the benefit of private developers. The Kelo decision is a classic case of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. It is a clear violation of the 9th Amendment, which guarantees unenumerate rights, like the right to own private property. This ruling is an abomination and a stain on our jurisprudence. Even for ajurisprudence has been systematicaly, endemicably, and irreparably marred and denigrated by judicial fiat and malfeasance, this decision stands head and shoulders above the rest. This flagrantly, extra-constitutional decision will serve to destroy the individual right to own private property guaranteed by the 9th amendment. It is a wreckless, destabilizing ruling by a group of mental dwarfs that treat the constitution as a "Living Document". Our founding fathers rose up because they were taxed a few cents on tea and paper. If they got so worked up over tax on tea, I can only imagine what they would do upon learning of this miscarriage of justice.
"It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution. We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands." - Antonin Scalia
The phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence based on John Locke's fundemental rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.
See http://www.conservativebookstore.com/ylocke.shtml
Locke's works (including the "Two Treatises") are available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/Intros/Locke.php
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Locke0154/TwoTreatises/0057_Bk.html
§. 131. But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one’s property.
The Strata-Sphere and IJ's Private Property Page have the right take on it.
Here's how the justices ruled:
The miscreants that think the government's rights supercede your rights, and that the 9th amendment is a meaningless waste of ink are:
- John Paul Stevens
- Anthony Kennedy
- David H. Souter
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Stephen G. Breyer
The justices that understand that there should be fundamental limitations on the rights of government bureaucrats are:
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- William H. Rehnquist
- Antonin Scalia
- Clarence Thomas
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
Technorati tags:
Delicious tags:
Folksonomy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share web pages.
Posted by Peenie Wallie on June 24, 2005 at 09:09 PM
Comments
And so it begins....
June 23, 2005, 11:35PM
Freeport moves to seize 3 properties
Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina
By THAYER EVANS
Chronicle Correspondent
FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.
The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.
Read the rest of the story at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024
Posted by: Robert on June 27, 2005 at 11:18 PM