A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
-----The 'Civil Flag' -- Forgotten Flag, or Flag of Fraud and Fiction?
-----Status of the 'Fair Tax Act of 2005' (H.R. 25; S 25)
Weights & Measures:
Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Kelo v. New London, Eminent Domain: Supreme Court Rules Government May Steal Your Property at Will -- Overrules 5th Amendment I have just heard that the Supreme Court has ruled in the case Kelo v. New London. They ruled that the government may take your property and give it to someone else with more money to develop it than you have.
We no longer have property rights. We are now a Communist Plutocracy. Government will now rule based solely on the public good (not what the Constitution allows) -- only the very rich and connected will be allowed to decide what the public good is. We defeated the Soviet Union only to have it resurrected today by the United States Supreme Court -- welcome to the USSA. Official name change will come at a later date.
Just for reference, the 5th Amendment States: "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." [emphasis added]
This ruling allows private land to be taken by the government for private use -- so long as the new private use will generate more tax revenue.
I say we seize these Justices' private homes and put up shiny new Wal Marts; see how they like it.
These Justices should be impeached for blatantly violating the Constitution of these United States.
Impeach the Five Justices?
Yes, impeach them. Justices can be impeached:
Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [emphasis added]
Come on . . . You're not Suggesting that these Five Justices Committed a High Crime or Misdemeanor by their ruling?
Well, I don't know. You tell me:
Constitution of the United States, Article VI Clause 3: [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. [emphasis added]
What do you think? All Justices take an oath to support the Constitution of these United States. This ruling effectively nullifies the Fifth Amendment -- it is, then, a clear violation of the Justices' oath of office. And that is perjury under the laws of these United States.
18 USC 1621
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
If a crime in punishable by 5 years in prison, it is definitely a felony under the laws of these United States.
Since these five Justices have violated their oath of office -- their Constitutionally required oath to uphold the Constitution (which is, by the way, the only basis for the Supreme Court's authority) -- they can and should be put on trial for perjury. If convicted, they would be felons. They would no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, or any of the other rights that the Supreme Court has seen fit to deny to convicted felons. The fact is, they are eligible for Impeachment by Congress.
I urge you, then, to write your Representatives (Article I, Clause 5: The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.) and request that they do their Constitutional duty and vote to Impeach these perjurous Supreme Court Justices. In case you want to know more about the accused Justices, they are Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and John Paul Stevens.
Here is a petition demanding the impeachment of the 5 perjurous Justices. (Or should we just call them 'Law Lords' now -- what they do clearly has nothing to do with justice).
Here, also, is another petition calling for "a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kelo vs. New London on June .23, 2005 and to protect American Citizens from future eminent domain violations."
* * *
All is not lost, there is still the Federalist option
There is some good news in all of this, though. Despite the fact the Supreme Court has ceased to uphold the Constitution, we can still put pressure on our state and local governments to institute strict eminent domain guidelines. That is the beauty of federalism -- at least, when federalism is working the way it's supposed to. This ruling does not affect how strict a state law may be; what it does is to allow the state governments very broad latitude in deciding what a public purpose is. We need to be very clear with our governments and insist that they use a very narrow definition of 'public use'. A few months ago, I proposed these guidelines:
1.) 'Private ownership' and 'public use' shall be mutually exclusive terms in all eminent domain matters. 2.) Eminent domain powers shall not be exercised except for a public use. 3.) If the government can accomplish its stated purpose without using eminent domain, that government shall not use eminent domain.
* * *
I have spoken at length on this topic already:
---------Kelo v. New London: Eminent domain before high court, Transferring private land to other private hands at issue
---------Kelo v. New London: Eminent domain abuses before Supreme Court; New guidelines suggested
---------Kelo v. New London, Eminent Domain: Do You Think It's Okay for the City To Give Your Land to a Developer for 'Increased Tax Revenue'?
* * *
"It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot be separated."
--James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829
* * *
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere and the Internet:
---------AP: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
---------Institute of Justice: Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
---------BREAKING: MAJOR LOSS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
---------Court upholds property seizure in New London
---------What's Yours is Mine
---------Dollar is King
---------A Quote for Today -- Explotation
---------High Court OKs Personal Property Seizures
---------Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.
---------Kiss your property rights goodbye
---------Hypoxic Mutterings: Kelo v. City of New London
---------SCOTUSblog: Takings and privatization
---------United States Constitution, 1788 - 2005: Promise Unkept
---------Protect Homes, Not Flags
---------Blackshirts in Black Robes:Neoliberal Fascism on Maryland Ave
---------This is Bad, Very Bad
---------a blog for all: Imminent Domain
---------Fascism on the Potomac
---------Supreme Court upholds property seizure in New London
---------Supreme Court upholds city's abuse of eminent domain
---------Refusing to Stand up for Average Americans
---------THE KELO EFFECT: Supreme Court Defeats Property Owners in Eminent Domain Decision
---------For What It's Worth
---------Stunned by Kelo v. New London
---------Amendment? I'll give ya an Amendment...Right HERE
---------Elfin Ethicist: Kelo v. New London
---------Today's Interesting Kelo v. New London Links
---------The Kelo Decision
--------- Petition for Redress of Grievances
---------Why Bother Celebrating the Fourth?
---------Betrayal at the Supreme Court
---------Fighting Kelo v. New London
---------Another Terrible Decision By 5 Robed Legislators
---------Outrage over eminent domain ruling
---------post-Kelo, the knives are out in Texas
---------Now That the Other Shoe's Dropped . . .
---------The End of Private Property - What Now?
---------This land was your land
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
--James Madison _____________________________________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."