Text 13719, 101 rader
Skriven 2005-06-25 02:13:57 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
     Kommentar till en text av John Massey (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Throwing out the 5th Amendment
======================================
24 Jun 05 21:19, John Massey wrote to John Hull:

 JM> "John Hull -> Supreme Court" <1:379/1.99> wrote in message
 JM> news:11653$POLITICS@JamNNTPd...
 JH>> Well, folks, the United States Supreme Court has finally thrown 
 JH>> off all pretence of following the rule of law as put down in the 
 JH>> US Constitution, by gutting the 5th Amendment right against take 
 JH>> someone's property without due compensation.

 JH>> I've said for a long time that sooner or later we would have a 
 JH>> second revolution in this country, but I never expected that it 
 JH>> could happen in my lifetime.  I have not seen anything that has 
 JH>> stirred up the ire of the American public in so short a time as 
 JH>> this ruling.  The USSC has touched off a 10.0 earthquake, and the 
 JH>> tsunami that it creates is going to destroy everything in its 
 JH>> path.

 JH>> Anyone who owns property in this country now has to decide whether 
 JH>> to fight or to knuckle under to tyrrany, because the fallout from 
 JH>> this has already started in New England and California.

 JM> As you are well aware, I have been sounding off about eminent 
 JM> domain abuse
 JM> for years. The only hope now is to move in State Legislatures to 
 JM> enact state
 JM> laws to more narrowly define public use.

 JM> Neal Boortz expresses what I feel much better than I can. He said:

 JM> The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's 
 JM> right of
 JM> eminent domain.  It does not, as I heard so many commentators say 
 JM> yesterday,
 JM> grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it.  The right of 
 JM> eminent
 JM> domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law.  The 
 JM> Fifth
 JM> Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this 
 JM> right for a
 JM> public use without paying for it.  The exact working is "nor shall 
 JM> private
 JM> property be taken for public use without just compensation."

 JM> For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to 
 JM> mean use for
 JM> something like a school, library, police or fire station, power 
 JM> transmission
 JM> lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by
 JM> government for the benefit of the general population.  As 
 JM> politicians became
 JM> more and more impressed with their own power they started to 
 JM> expand this
 JM> definition of public use.

 JM> The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a 
 JM> parcel of
 JM> property is a public use.  Increasing the number of people who can 
 JM> be
 JM> employed by a business located on a particular piece of property 
 JM> can also be
 JM> a public use.  This would mean that government would be free to 
 JM> seize
 JM> private property if it can be handed to a developer who will 
 JM> redevelop the
 JM> property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number 
 JM> of people
 JM> employed.  This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme 
 JM> Court
 JM> yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property 
 JM> seizure in
 JM> New London, Connecticut.  As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in 
 JM> her
 JM> dissent, this decision  renders virtually all private property 
 JM> vulnerable to
 JM> government confiscation.

 JM> Bottom line:  If you own property, and the government wants that
 JM> property --- you're screwed.  You now own your private property 
 JM> only at the
 JM> pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, 
 JM> be it
 JM> your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only 
 JM> at the
 JM> pleasure of the local controlling politicians.

The range wars of the 1880's and 1890's between the cattle barons and farmers
and homesteaders is a similar 5th Amendment situation in our past.  The famous
Lincoln County War in New Mexico (yup, the one involving Pat Garret, Billy the
Kid, etc.) is the most well known example of it.  I wonder how long it will be
before some crusty old boy decides he's gonna go down fighting when the bull
dozers come to knock down his house?  Because it will happen, sooner or later.
The American people aren't going to roll over for this one, if I'm reading the
early signs right.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
LIBERALS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS!

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)