Friday, June 24, 2005

Property Rights at Risk

By Eli Harvey (click "comments" below for the article).

8 Comments:

Anonymous Eli Harvey said...

WHAT KIND OF "CIRCUMSTANCES"?

Eli Harvey

With the advent of the fourteen senators who have collectively been labeled "The Seven Dwarfs,"

a new phrase hit the scene: "exceptional circumstances." Senator Mark Pryor, junior senator from our own State of Arkansas, holds membership in that group. Yet, neither he nor any other member of the "Dwarfs" has thus far delineated the precise meaning of the phrase.

Undefined phraseology always benefits liberals because it can mean whatever they deem it to mean at the time. New Mexico’s Governor, Bill Richardson, smarting from criticism for his flagrant disregard for speed limits in his state, apologized recently, saying he has now "instructed his state police...to obey posted limits except under ‘exceptional circumstances.’"

More egregious still was the U. S. Supreme Court’s finding this week. In clear defiance of the U. S. Constitution, the court openly stretched the phrase in opposition to both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both of those Amendments prohibit government –any government– from stealing the property of it citizenry.

Amendment Five clearly states,

...nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Section One of the Fourteenth echos the Fifth when it says in part,

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

At issue in the Big Court’s decision are the Amendment phrases "for public use" and "just compensation." Applying the "exceptional circumstances" concept to the Constitution’s Amendments, the court brazenly stripped them of their original intent. Procurement of land for a public roadway can be justly viewed as "for public use." But, demolishing the historic area of a city where people live for the sole purpose of building a shopping mall, stretches the credulity of "for public use." On that basis, one house in a multi-house subdivision could be snatched by local government to provide a latrine for the rest of the subdivision. Would anyone believe that to be credible?

"Just compensation" requires the "exceptional circumstances" phrase, too. In his provocatively insightful book, Constitutional Chaos, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano cites the instance of a Rhode Island citizen, who acquired some waterfront property. The city government declared that the land was "protected costal wetlands," and required that the owner demonstrate a "compelling public purpose which provides benefits to the public as a whole" in order to build on his own land.

Incredibly, appraisers then reduced the value of the land from more than $3 million to some $200,000. The owner sued for "just compensation," but lost when the Supreme Court of Rhode Island said that he had "‘failed to establish a deprivation of all economic value,’ since he was left with more than a ‘token interest.’"

All that legalese gives good reason to believe that "exceptional circumstances" is no new discovery. The Rhode Island case occurred in 1959. But, as time moves onward, governments become more brazen in their lust for gold.

The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision affects not only Connecticut, but the State of Arkansas

as well. Citizens need to become vigilant like the Revolutionary Minutemen. The door to the hen house is now wide open. And government foxes will be everywhere looking to grab the hens and their houses, too. Yell if you will, but "exceptional circumstance" will always weigh heavily on the side of government. No exception there.

9:57 PM, June 24, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

If Bork had made it to the high court instead of Kennedy, We would not be facing this problem today.

10:11 AM, June 25, 2005  
Anonymous Eli Harvey said...

Yes, Terry, that's right. And if Souter were the conservative he was touted to be during the confirmation process...and if O'Conner were a true conservative... and if Kennedy and Breyer and Stevens and Ginsburg were to follow the clear wording of the Constitution instead of "legislating from the bench," a lot of things would not have to be being faced today.

2:38 PM, June 25, 2005  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

There is no political freedom if what we have can be taken by the state, or it's favorites, for any reason.

5:16 PM, June 25, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONSTITUTION PARTY OPPOSES THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SEIZE PEOPLE’S HOMES AND BUSINESSES AGAINST THEIR WILL FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT


CONTACT: DARRELL L. CASTLE
SITE: CONSTITUTIONPARTY.COM


IN THE CASE OF KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON 04 - 108, THE SUPREME COURT RULED 5 TO 4 THAT A CITY MAY SEIZE PRIVATE HOMES AND USE THE LAND FOR AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PROJECT PROVIDED THE CITY PAYS THE HOMEOWNERS “JUST COMPENSATION”.

WE, IN THE CONSTITUTION PARTY, BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT TO OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO CIVILIZATION, AND THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A NATURAL RIGHT TO OWN, CONTROL, AND DISPOSE OF HIS OR HER PROPERTY.

A PERSON’S HOME AND PRIVATE PROPERTY SERVES AS THE BASIS FOR LIBERTY BECAUSE WITHOUT PERSONAL ECONOMIC POWER (A HOME, A JOB, THE RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY), A PERSON CANNOT SUPPORT HIMSELF OR HIS OR HER FAMILY AND IS THEREFORE AT THE MERCY OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

GOVERNMENT TAKING A PERSON’S PROPERTY AND DELIVERING IT TO ANIOTHER PRIVATE PARTY IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE GOVERNMENT’S TAX REVENUE IS DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR. SIMPLY PUT, TAX REVENUE FOR GOVERNMENT IS NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN A PERSON’S HOME.

THE CONSTITUTION PARTY HEREBY EXPRESSES ITS OPPOSITION TO THIS RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM CENTURIES OF AMERICAN HISTORY AND CALLS ON THE COURT TO REVERSE ITS DECISION.

12:04 PM, June 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where was the Constitution Party when Bill Stovall and his happy band of liberals killed a bill that would have protected property owners from jack-booted condemnation?

3:43 PM, June 27, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Heck, the national GOP could not even manage a press release condeming the ruling. I guess too many big-donors were making money off using the coercive power of the state to force land out of the hands of one set of private owners so that a prefered set of private owners can buy it.

Where were the Republicans when Stovall and company killed it? I'll tell you where some of them were: they were busy denying us ballot access in violation of court rulings (by refusing to bring SB1112 to a vote).

Until we get in office, we can't be anything but a voice in the wilderness. If people want our ideas implemented, they need to help us gather signatures for ballot access in 06.

10:38 PM, June 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is very interesting site... »

6:01 AM, February 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home