Rebellion Against the Eminent Dominatrix
America has begun fighting back against that would-be thievery unleashed by the Kelo vs. New London decision. Since the Supreme Court ruling turned Eminent Domain from a gentle lady into a Dominatrix we have seen the citizenry rise in rebellion, demanding that their rights be respected. It seems Americans still have some spirit in them, after all!
As you all remember, in Kelo the Black Robes gave their blessing to state and local governments to seize property for purposes other than those authorized by the Constitution of these United States. The Court ruled that property may be taken for economic redevelopement or other ``public purpose``, further reducing the rights of owners to hold and utilize real property. Prior to this, Eminent Domain powers were generally estricted to necessary functions such as the developement of roads and bridges. Now, according to the Court, a person may have their property seized in favor of the Golden Arches, or Home Depot can tear a man`s castle down for the sake of ``home improvement``. What should be an absolutely sacred view of property rights has been steadily eroding, and the Courts have led the charge on the bastion of this most fundamental right.
For more on my views, visit my August 17 post here or check out my American Thinker article The First Right.
A while back, I reported on an angry session of the city council of Maplewood, Mo. in which the residents forced the mayor to pledge not to use eminent domain for redevelopement purposes. Now, an alderman in the City of St. Louis has actually been recalled for advancing a scheme to steal property for redevelopement! The Patriots are dumping that tea, folks!
David Hogberg reports today in TAS that Rep. Richard Pombo has introduced a bill amending the Endangered Species Act to prevent government from stealing property and denying property rights of the citizenry.
Numerous States have been working to restrict Eminent Domain powers within their jurisdiction, but this is not enough. We need a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee this basic right, since the Supreme Court seems incapable of finding property rights in the Constitution (while finding more dubious ``rights`` such as abortion, freedom from religion, school desegregation, etc.) Property rights are the cornerstone on which all other rights rest, and they must be protected at all cost!
As you all remember, in Kelo the Black Robes gave their blessing to state and local governments to seize property for purposes other than those authorized by the Constitution of these United States. The Court ruled that property may be taken for economic redevelopement or other ``public purpose``, further reducing the rights of owners to hold and utilize real property. Prior to this, Eminent Domain powers were generally estricted to necessary functions such as the developement of roads and bridges. Now, according to the Court, a person may have their property seized in favor of the Golden Arches, or Home Depot can tear a man`s castle down for the sake of ``home improvement``. What should be an absolutely sacred view of property rights has been steadily eroding, and the Courts have led the charge on the bastion of this most fundamental right.
For more on my views, visit my August 17 post here or check out my American Thinker article The First Right.
A while back, I reported on an angry session of the city council of Maplewood, Mo. in which the residents forced the mayor to pledge not to use eminent domain for redevelopement purposes. Now, an alderman in the City of St. Louis has actually been recalled for advancing a scheme to steal property for redevelopement! The Patriots are dumping that tea, folks!
David Hogberg reports today in TAS that Rep. Richard Pombo has introduced a bill amending the Endangered Species Act to prevent government from stealing property and denying property rights of the citizenry.
Numerous States have been working to restrict Eminent Domain powers within their jurisdiction, but this is not enough. We need a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee this basic right, since the Supreme Court seems incapable of finding property rights in the Constitution (while finding more dubious ``rights`` such as abortion, freedom from religion, school desegregation, etc.) Property rights are the cornerstone on which all other rights rest, and they must be protected at all cost!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 2:58 PM
3 Comments:
Today's judicial activism is not what our Founders had in mind when they established the Supreme Court. Rather, our Founders expected the justices to make sure that individuals' basic rights were protected. Judicial activists are particularly vulnerable to special-interest groups and sets another dangerous precedent.
I recently read that the settlement which those Connecticut families will be receiving may have debited from it the costs encountered by those who are disenfranchising the families who are losing their homes. Certainly such a reduction in payment violates our Founders' intentions.
Recall?
Well, I guess if you can't use tar, feathers, and a stout rope, recall is the next best thing.
Up the Rebels!
Oh, one more point, responding to always on watch's comment that the home-losers might also lose some of the pittance they're supposed to be paid for the homes being stolen from them:
Where is Howard Roark when you need him?
Post a Comment
<< Home