-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
O.T. Supreme Court kills individual property rights...
- Thread starter Mark Nelson
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,861
June 24, 2005
By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I wrote a book a few years ago about property rights.
It was called, "This Land Is Our Land."
I didn't think of it as an optimistic book at the time.
But after yesterday's chilling U.S. Supreme Court ruling that government can seize our property against our will for no other reason than it capriciously chooses to do so, the title is certainly no longer accurate.
We do not own our property any more in America.
Imagine the home you own the one you scrimped and saved your entire life to purchase, the one you planned on living in for the rest of your life, the one you planned to pass on to your heirs was taken from you, capriciously by a small group of local officials in conspiracy with wealthy developers who want to level it and build office buildings.
You may not have to imagine it. It could happen to you any time. It has already happened to a group of Connecticut homeowners salt-of-the-earth, working Americans whose modest homes represent their life savings, their estates, their life's work.
That was the finding of the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Your property is not your property.
That home you invested so much of your life in it belongs to the government. It is only on loan to you until the day the government chooses to loan it to someone else. That is the message of the black-robed tyrants. Listen to it well.
This is the most basic freedom upon which all the other liberties we hold dear are built.
That's what the founding fathers explained. Freedom of speech? It descends, they said, from the right to property. Your thoughts, your beliefs, your opinions were equated with your personal property and possessions. That's why you had the right to express them according to your conscience.
Notice I said "had."
Five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court undercut every freedom we know in America.
I do not exaggerate when I say they have done more damage to the Constitution than any five people in history.
Stop worrying about Osama bin Laden and nuclear-armed terrorists. All they can do is kill you. Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stephens and Stephen G. Breyer have done something worse. They would have you live in servitude to the state. They would reduce all free Americans to serfs. They would make government your master.
The Congress better stop worrying about trivial issues like flag desecration. The Constitution has just been trampled, spit upon and torched. In doing so, these judicial terrorists have done more harm to the American way of life than weapons of mass destruction ever could.
If this ruling is permitted to stand by the U.S. Congress, it's simply time to start shopping for a new country or start planning the revolution. I don't know what else to say about it.
President Bush needs to speak out against this travesty of justice. The Congress needs to be heard from. Yes, the Congress has the power, should it ever have the courage to use it, to set aside a ruling like this and permanently enjoin the court from ever ruling in the future against the well-enshrined, inalienable, well-documented, constitutionally protected right to own and enjoy property.
This country was birthed in a war of independence fought against an unaccountable empire that failed to acknowledge and respect the rights of colonists in America. But the grievances of those heroic patriots that created the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known were trivial compared to the grievances 21st-century Americans have against the empire in Washington.
The only question is whether or not we have the courage of our forefathers. Are we willing to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to reclaim our American birthright of freedom?
It's time for a new tea party. It's time for a new Lexington and Concord. It's time for a new Declaration of Independence. It's time for civil disobedience and throwing off the shackles of rule by men. It's time to begin plotting how to re-establish the rule of law under a sovereign God.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44960
By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I wrote a book a few years ago about property rights.
It was called, "This Land Is Our Land."
I didn't think of it as an optimistic book at the time.
But after yesterday's chilling U.S. Supreme Court ruling that government can seize our property against our will for no other reason than it capriciously chooses to do so, the title is certainly no longer accurate.
We do not own our property any more in America.
Imagine the home you own the one you scrimped and saved your entire life to purchase, the one you planned on living in for the rest of your life, the one you planned to pass on to your heirs was taken from you, capriciously by a small group of local officials in conspiracy with wealthy developers who want to level it and build office buildings.
You may not have to imagine it. It could happen to you any time. It has already happened to a group of Connecticut homeowners salt-of-the-earth, working Americans whose modest homes represent their life savings, their estates, their life's work.
That was the finding of the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Your property is not your property.
That home you invested so much of your life in it belongs to the government. It is only on loan to you until the day the government chooses to loan it to someone else. That is the message of the black-robed tyrants. Listen to it well.
This is the most basic freedom upon which all the other liberties we hold dear are built.
That's what the founding fathers explained. Freedom of speech? It descends, they said, from the right to property. Your thoughts, your beliefs, your opinions were equated with your personal property and possessions. That's why you had the right to express them according to your conscience.
Notice I said "had."
Five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court undercut every freedom we know in America.
I do not exaggerate when I say they have done more damage to the Constitution than any five people in history.
Stop worrying about Osama bin Laden and nuclear-armed terrorists. All they can do is kill you. Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stephens and Stephen G. Breyer have done something worse. They would have you live in servitude to the state. They would reduce all free Americans to serfs. They would make government your master.
The Congress better stop worrying about trivial issues like flag desecration. The Constitution has just been trampled, spit upon and torched. In doing so, these judicial terrorists have done more harm to the American way of life than weapons of mass destruction ever could.
If this ruling is permitted to stand by the U.S. Congress, it's simply time to start shopping for a new country or start planning the revolution. I don't know what else to say about it.
President Bush needs to speak out against this travesty of justice. The Congress needs to be heard from. Yes, the Congress has the power, should it ever have the courage to use it, to set aside a ruling like this and permanently enjoin the court from ever ruling in the future against the well-enshrined, inalienable, well-documented, constitutionally protected right to own and enjoy property.
This country was birthed in a war of independence fought against an unaccountable empire that failed to acknowledge and respect the rights of colonists in America. But the grievances of those heroic patriots that created the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known were trivial compared to the grievances 21st-century Americans have against the empire in Washington.
The only question is whether or not we have the courage of our forefathers. Are we willing to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to reclaim our American birthright of freedom?
It's time for a new tea party. It's time for a new Lexington and Concord. It's time for a new Declaration of Independence. It's time for civil disobedience and throwing off the shackles of rule by men. It's time to begin plotting how to re-establish the rule of law under a sovereign God.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44960
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,207
Bill Marsh said:
The issue before the Court was whether Connecticut state law, which authorized the taking, violated the U.S. Constitution. The decision of the Gang of Five is not subject to review by Congress under the Constitution. So: 1) Change Connecticut law; 2) Support a fillibuster-proof majority so that the minority on the Court becomes a majority; and 3) Support a Constitutional Amendment that makes it clear that all the land does not belong to the sovereign.
I doubt that you could find 5% of the citizenry to support the outcome in this case.
By the way, similar predictions of doom were heard when the TVA was taking large tracts of land seventy years ago. (At least that was a public project.)
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,466
I believe that there is more going on here then is readily apparent. This latest move on property rights is a defensive move by municipalities to protect their interests. There is real estate pricing bubble that can go at any moment and local governemnt is funded primarilly by local real estate taxes. So if a community of 10,000 single homes loses 50% of its taxable value, its local government would face a major budgetary crisis. One way out for them may be to scrap 1,000 of those homes and replace them with the equivalent of another 10,000 high rise condos (or office buildings, or factories) at the new price levels. Budgeting would then be based at 20,000 taxable units instead of the original 10,000; hence restoring, at least on paper, the original tax revenue targets.
This is not just an attack on property values; it is an indication that the insiders are getting very worried about the stability of the present real estate market.
n2s
This is not just an attack on property values; it is an indication that the insiders are getting very worried about the stability of the present real estate market.
n2s
I am certainly not for this decision either, but the fact is, no one ever really owned their land in the first place. Don't pay the taxes, and see who owns it.
The "real" part of "real estate" comes from Spain and the term "Estate Royale"--the King's estate. You're only borrowing it as long as you pay the tax.
On a certain level, I'm glad this decision was made. The fact that it's more and more public, I believe, will increase awareness about the loss of our rights. It's about time the sheeple started paying attention. Sometimes you need something radical to get people's attention.
--Rip
The "real" part of "real estate" comes from Spain and the term "Estate Royale"--the King's estate. You're only borrowing it as long as you pay the tax.
On a certain level, I'm glad this decision was made. The fact that it's more and more public, I believe, will increase awareness about the loss of our rights. It's about time the sheeple started paying attention. Sometimes you need something radical to get people's attention.
--Rip
Granted, the purpose of this ruling is supposedly to benefit the community... For the greater good! It is surprisingly "FAR LEFT" to think of the greater good, as more important, more crucial, more Socialistic, than the good of one person.... the good of an individual! This legal argument is based on the concept that the group is more important than the individual. In the United States, unlike many other countries, the rights of an individual private person, usually in pursuit of happiness, have characteristically, come first!Mark Nelson said:By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
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.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
Thanks,
iBear
We have had many individual freedoms and liberties. These rights are granted and provided for each and every one of "all people". Most of these basic concepts, though often misunderstood, are guaranteed to us as inalienable rights. These rights come to us from a source that agrees with life. This agreement is assumed to come from our creator. Not commonly discussed or even known by many people, truthfully, this has always been the law in this country.
Actually, in this country, your rights are said to be guaranteed by our creator. This responsibility for our own rights, has been legally adjudicated to "We the people" and it falls on each of us as an individual responsibility.
This being the case, no one, no entity, no police force, no armed services, no CIA, no DEA, nobody but, yourself and "GOD" is legally responsible for the enforcement, protection or any guarantee of these basic human rights.
Without fanfare, falderall, parades or public notice, and for the most part, without our knowledge, "We the people" have been legally appointed as "protectors and enforcers" of the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and legal defenders of ourselves!
Certainly, if we follow the law, our courts are supposed to back us up. Even that assumption is much in question, in many courts. Our local Police will show up..... in time, and pick up the pieces. But, they are not legally required to do anything at all. They do not even have to show up, even if they know that a crime will be committed or that a crime is now in progress. They can legally watch it happen and ignore the victim, as has happened recently, on several occasions. Truthfully, they are not even legally liable, in most cases, in these irresponsible instances.
The right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence has long been a foundation for critical thinking concerning the rights of an individual man, in The United States Of America. Certainly, we pray, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is enforced with GOD'S help, only by us, for ourselves and by ourselves.
iBear
Actually, in this country, your rights are said to be guaranteed by our creator. This responsibility for our own rights, has been legally adjudicated to "We the people" and it falls on each of us as an individual responsibility.
This being the case, no one, no entity, no police force, no armed services, no CIA, no DEA, nobody but, yourself and "GOD" is legally responsible for the enforcement, protection or any guarantee of these basic human rights.
Without fanfare, falderall, parades or public notice, and for the most part, without our knowledge, "We the people" have been legally appointed as "protectors and enforcers" of the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and legal defenders of ourselves!
Certainly, if we follow the law, our courts are supposed to back us up. Even that assumption is much in question, in many courts. Our local Police will show up..... in time, and pick up the pieces. But, they are not legally required to do anything at all. They do not even have to show up, even if they know that a crime will be committed or that a crime is now in progress. They can legally watch it happen and ignore the victim, as has happened recently, on several occasions. Truthfully, they are not even legally liable, in most cases, in these irresponsible instances.
The right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence has long been a foundation for critical thinking concerning the rights of an individual man, in The United States Of America. Certainly, we pray, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is enforced with GOD'S help, only by us, for ourselves and by ourselves.
iBear
I think both parties should support all the amendments.hollowdweller said:
*********************************************
Hmmmmm...... Isn't that their job???? ... AFTERALL!!! ARE NOT ALL MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO INTERPRET THE EXISTING LAW???
Since when is it the Supreme Court's job to write new law? I though new laws were the domain of Congress!
Thanks,
iBear
ibear said:
Refuse to move!! Let's get real. How long do we think it will take a tax loving judge to set a fine of $500.00+ per day for each day over a scheduled time to vacate.
Not only will your property be "taken" but your compensation will be taken thru fines. The Governor will move the National Guard in there and evict everyone of those illegals just like Sharon is doing presently in Israel.
Why do fail to recognize that the Gov't must first seize your firearms which has been their prime objective for at least the past 75 years, assisted by the american mainstream socialist media..
Meanwhile the sheeple continue to go baaaa,baaaaa,baaaaa while the wolves circle closer and closer.
About all that can be done is to feel an immense sadness at the brilliant incremental deconstruction that has been exercised on the Constitution.
Will the American people vote in enough conservative senators to stop Teddy Kennedy and his whores-- the Boxers, Schumers, Feinsteins,Leahy's,Durbins,Reids,Clintons from finishing the job?--I think not.
Will the urban predators,felons,socialista's,communista's,hollywood freaks,ghetto welfare minorties,and illegal aliens vote in a socialist president next time?Probably so.
What the Hey-- we can demand they give us :barf: an apology from the floor of Congress when they succeed. Wanna put any odds on whether or not they'll say we're sorry?Didn't think so.
- Joined
- May 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,668
I used to live in New London back in the mid to late '80s. The entire area's economy relies heavily on the Groton/New London Submarine Base and Electric Boat, and Pfizer.
With the submarine base being cut, the area is going to turn into a slum. Real estate values in the area are going to plummet.
Eminent Domain has been exercised extensively throughout the history of our country's history - most notably in the development of our railroads. Ranchers owned huge tracts of land and parts were purchased/taken by the government for the purpose of laying RR tracks. This was a public good though. Everybody was going to benefit from this. What is going on in CT is NOT a public use of the land being stolen by the government. I am astounded that they had the temerity to do this.
I'm going to be sorry to see the G/NL Sub Base go. I have a lot of memories from there.
With the submarine base being cut, the area is going to turn into a slum. Real estate values in the area are going to plummet.
Eminent Domain has been exercised extensively throughout the history of our country's history - most notably in the development of our railroads. Ranchers owned huge tracts of land and parts were purchased/taken by the government for the purpose of laying RR tracks. This was a public good though. Everybody was going to benefit from this. What is going on in CT is NOT a public use of the land being stolen by the government. I am astounded that they had the temerity to do this.
I'm going to be sorry to see the G/NL Sub Base go. I have a lot of memories from there.
I think congress should act, it is well past time that they quit arguing about
BS and do something useful. Another sign we should vote all the *astards out and start with a fresh batch no matter the party ( both parties live in fear of this). People felt this way when Ross Peroit ran, scared the hell out of both democrats and republicans. It does appear to me that the govenrnment if only half the problem , the other half is the developers and the local officials. Uncontroled capitalism is also to blame here. I see this as
private proptery rights taking a back seat to commercial property speculation. We just allowed the local govenment guy to make that determination. If your local government is like ours here , that means that it is already a corupt alliance. I will be writing my congressman, I assure you, I agree with you guys that something needs to be done about this.
BS and do something useful. Another sign we should vote all the *astards out and start with a fresh batch no matter the party ( both parties live in fear of this). People felt this way when Ross Peroit ran, scared the hell out of both democrats and republicans. It does appear to me that the govenrnment if only half the problem , the other half is the developers and the local officials. Uncontroled capitalism is also to blame here. I see this as
private proptery rights taking a back seat to commercial property speculation. We just allowed the local govenment guy to make that determination. If your local government is like ours here , that means that it is already a corupt alliance. I will be writing my congressman, I assure you, I agree with you guys that something needs to be done about this.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
A lot of areas have a special exemption that reduces property taxes paid by old people. Here in WV we call it the Homestead Exemption.
So raising taxes to provide city services is a dirty word these days, so what is happening is they are running out longtime residents who aren't paying a lot of taxes and bringing in new ones who hopefully will.
So raising taxes to provide city services is a dirty word these days, so what is happening is they are running out longtime residents who aren't paying a lot of taxes and bringing in new ones who hopefully will.
About all that can be done is to feel an immense sadness at the brilliant incremental deconstruction that has been exercised on the Constitution.
Will the American people vote in enough conservative senators to stop Teddy Kennedy and his whores-- the Boxers, Schumers, Feinsteins,Leahy's,Durbins,Reids,Clintons from finishing the job?--I think not.
************************************************
Good point! We can do our best to work together. The answer is the power of the people! It is having hundreds, even thousands in attendance, as invited guests of the property owner... ALL refusing to leave the property!
That is the ONLY answer!
Media attention and appropriate legal action can delay this action for awhile. Your point is exactly correct! However, we still need to stick together in order to ever change these issues.
iBear
Will the American people vote in enough conservative senators to stop Teddy Kennedy and his whores-- the Boxers, Schumers, Feinsteins,Leahy's,Durbins,Reids,Clintons from finishing the job?--I think not.
************************************************
Good point! We can do our best to work together. The answer is the power of the people! It is having hundreds, even thousands in attendance, as invited guests of the property owner... ALL refusing to leave the property!
That is the ONLY answer!
Media attention and appropriate legal action can delay this action for awhile. Your point is exactly correct! However, we still need to stick together in order to ever change these issues.
iBear
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,207
The "only answer"?
Polls say 96% of the citizens are opposed to what's happening.
As long as the dirty deeds are being done by muncipal government, you can VOTE THEM OUT. It has been done -- many times and recently. It will be a cold day in the Ole Hot Place before an Ohio city tries condemning people' homes -- after Lakewood. I am told that in Conn. they can recall local elected officials.
BUT about 50% of those who could vote register and, on average, less than 50% of the registered bother to vote. Clinton was elected once by 12% of the adults not disqualified from voting (other than by not registering). The first president in a generation to get over 50% of those who voted was Bush.
AND:
The vast, vast majority of the land for the railroads was gifted public land, not private land.
The development of railroads allowed large commercial ranching and farming.
A relatively small amount of land fro railroads was taken by eminent domain. (My greatgrandfather fought a RR in Kentucky for 20 years to stop a taking -- and won [He was dead of old age by then, but so was the RR prexy who started it all.])
Weapons? The "assualt weapons ban" is gone. Concealed carry is more and more available. We are the most armed citizenry outside of Switzerland. It's good that the NRA "views with alarm." That's their (paid) job -- to keep track of the dreams of the anti Second Amendment crowd. Eternal vigilance and all that. That does not mean that Teddy's dreams will be realized. The trend is the other way.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the power to overrule state law authorizing eminent domain - a power reserved to the states.
If you don't think demonstrations against government action work, revisit the last forty-five years of our history. The big media would be all over LEO's or Guardsmen hauling away mom, dad, and the kids. But thousands at the next City Council meeting -- and the next and the next -- would have more impact -- and get coverage.
Write every state and local pol you know -- today! - and ask, "Where do you stand on the govenment taking people's homes?" (No form letters - no e-mail. Make the effort and spend $.37.)
Attend city council meetings and ask the same question.
Register.
Join the minority - vote.
Polls say 96% of the citizens are opposed to what's happening.
As long as the dirty deeds are being done by muncipal government, you can VOTE THEM OUT. It has been done -- many times and recently. It will be a cold day in the Ole Hot Place before an Ohio city tries condemning people' homes -- after Lakewood. I am told that in Conn. they can recall local elected officials.
BUT about 50% of those who could vote register and, on average, less than 50% of the registered bother to vote. Clinton was elected once by 12% of the adults not disqualified from voting (other than by not registering). The first president in a generation to get over 50% of those who voted was Bush.
AND:
The vast, vast majority of the land for the railroads was gifted public land, not private land.
The development of railroads allowed large commercial ranching and farming.
A relatively small amount of land fro railroads was taken by eminent domain. (My greatgrandfather fought a RR in Kentucky for 20 years to stop a taking -- and won [He was dead of old age by then, but so was the RR prexy who started it all.])
Weapons? The "assualt weapons ban" is gone. Concealed carry is more and more available. We are the most armed citizenry outside of Switzerland. It's good that the NRA "views with alarm." That's their (paid) job -- to keep track of the dreams of the anti Second Amendment crowd. Eternal vigilance and all that. That does not mean that Teddy's dreams will be realized. The trend is the other way.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the power to overrule state law authorizing eminent domain - a power reserved to the states.
If you don't think demonstrations against government action work, revisit the last forty-five years of our history. The big media would be all over LEO's or Guardsmen hauling away mom, dad, and the kids. But thousands at the next City Council meeting -- and the next and the next -- would have more impact -- and get coverage.
Write every state and local pol you know -- today! - and ask, "Where do you stand on the govenment taking people's homes?" (No form letters - no e-mail. Make the effort and spend $.37.)
Attend city council meetings and ask the same question.
Register.
Join the minority - vote.
The development of railroads allowed large commercial ranching and farming.
A relatively small amount of land fro railroads was taken by eminent domain. (My greatgrandfather fought a RR in Kentucky for 20 years to stop a taking -- and won [He was dead of old age by then, but so was the RR prexy who started it all.])
Weapons? The "assualt weapons ban" is gone. Concealed carry is more and more available. We are the most armed citizenry outside of Switzerland. It's good that the NRA "views with alarm." That's their (paid) job -- to keep track of the dreams of the anti Second Amendment crowd. Eternal vigilance and all that. That does not mean that Teddy's dreams will be realized. The trend is the other way.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the power to overrule state law authorizing eminent domain - a power reserved to the states.
*****************************************************
I like your style!
Thanks,
iBear
A relatively small amount of land fro railroads was taken by eminent domain. (My greatgrandfather fought a RR in Kentucky for 20 years to stop a taking -- and won [He was dead of old age by then, but so was the RR prexy who started it all.])
Weapons? The "assualt weapons ban" is gone. Concealed carry is more and more available. We are the most armed citizenry outside of Switzerland. It's good that the NRA "views with alarm." That's their (paid) job -- to keep track of the dreams of the anti Second Amendment crowd. Eternal vigilance and all that. That does not mean that Teddy's dreams will be realized. The trend is the other way.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the power to overrule state law authorizing eminent domain - a power reserved to the states.
*****************************************************
I like your style!
Thanks,
iBear
I think congress should act, it is well past time that they quit arguing about BS and do something useful.brantoken said:
*********************************************
Careful wording of the Constitutional Amendment is crucial to to enlist the support of the majority! I get very nervous when anyone is messing around with our Constitution.
Even the Schumer - Feinstein - Boxer coalition crowd, makes me super paranoid about letting anyone mess around with the wording of any amendments. I am glad they wrote the Assault Weapons Ban that didn't outlaw any Assault Weapons.... For that reason, because it was very poorly written and a poorly designed weapons ban.... it has expired! That made my day.... every day!
Thanks,
iBear
ibear said:I think congress should act, it is well past time that they quit arguing about BS and do something useful.
*********************************************
Careful wording of the Constitutional Amendment is crucial to to enlist the support of the majority! I get very nervous when anyone is messing around with our Constitution.
Even the Schumer - Feinstein - Boxer coalition crowd, makes me super paranoid about letting anyone mess around with the wording of any amendments. I am glad they wrote the Assault Weapons Ban that didn't outlaw any Assault Weapons.... For that reason, because it was very poorly written and a poorly designed weapons ban.... it has expired! That made my day.... every day!
Thanks,
iBear
Amen! Made my day also! That's why I passed on my latest Kuk purchase and sent the money to Congressman Tom Delay's reelection campaign fund.