| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Kelo Decision a Wake up Call to Conservatives |
| 2005-06-25 |
| I have been ranting about this ever since the deal with the 14 senators. It is past time to "nuke" the left. They know they can't win, but they know that conservatives lose if the left is continued to allow to obstruct rebalancing the courts. Edited for the conclusion Thus, the appointees of three Republican presidents have been responsible for, in the words of Justice OâConnorâs principal (and principled) dissent (joined by Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) âwash[ing] out the words âfor public useâ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment,â and in the process sending any meaningful principle of private property down the drain. There is a profound message in the Kelo case for President Bush and those (other than in the Senate) who will advise him on Supreme Court nominees. It is well expressed in the separate dissent of Justice Thomas: the Court must make its decisions based not on ephemeral notions of public good, but âin favor of the Constitutionâs meaning.â Is George W. Bush listening? |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #14 I have let Bill Frist know in no uncertain terms how I feel about this. Individual property rights here in the US are DEAD! This is socialism pure and simple! Since he is not running for another term he seems to not care. What a piece of shit. I'm sorry I voted for him. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-06-25 19:04 |
| #13 McCain would be an excellent start. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-25 16:03 |
| #12 Cingold? |
| Posted by: Pissed off Owl 2005-06-25 15:58 |
| #11 This is not simply about takings, private property, etc. This is really about the New Deal and the idea that the government knows what's good for us all better than we each do for ourselves; Adam Smith and J. S. Mill vs Marx and de Man. The uproar about such a technical decision is refreshing. It indicates yet again that the people understood what Reagan meant. But the elites who run the country were brought up in the New Deal paradigm of government knows best. This is reflected in the Kelo decision and in the Raitch decision that a state can't make locally grown pot legal for medicinal purposes. The real conservatives here are the elites who are in power. They want to conserve the idea that government knows best and therefore should control every aspect of our lives, from pre-natal care to funeral planning. Old dogs do not learn new tricks. These people will be removed from power and replaced by people who do not share their ideas, if the people keep electing representatives and executives who share their ideas. This dependes on the people maintaining their faith in the individual above the government. That is a radical proposition, expeciall to those in power. And the Democrats have lost almost all the power. That's why they're fighting so fiercely about the court appointments. After the court changes, replacement of the elites will accelerate. But the people have to keep electing new leaders who are not seduced by the idea that government knows best once they get in power. This requires patience as it will take a long time to clear out all the deadwood from the corridors of our national bureaucracies. It will take even longer to empty those corridors. But the people need to keep trying. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-25 15:39 |
| #10 Here is the link to the judgement and the concurring and dissenting opinions. Steve---good points. The first one about voting out the city officials that put this stuff is more workable, IMHO. A constitutional amendment is a huge undertaking that probably will go nowhere. The great battlefield is and will be in selecting Federal judges. It is the last bastion of power for the LLL Dems. It is legislation by judicial fiat. The big battle is coming with nominations to the SCOTUS. The Republicans better approach this one with the nuke option, or they will be finished as a party. This battle is for the soul of the nation, no doubt about it. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-06-25 14:12 |
| #9 Is Bush listening is not the right question. This is only the latest mindless decision coming out of the SC. Bush's slate of judicial nominees fully indicates his interest in allevating this problem. There is a mounting list of SC decisions that need to be reversed once the deck is reshuffled. The real question is: Are the American people listening? This latest decision is an affront to all American home owners (Dummycrat, Repubs, etc.). |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-06-25 14:07 |
| #8 Where I am cheesed off to no end is the fact the SCotUS said now the governments can seize MY house to make room for a golf course or Wal-Mart. Government could already do this: all they had to do was say that your house was in a 'blighted' area. SCOTUS went along with that 40 years ago. They're simply saying now that blight need not be a necessary condition; a desire to increase village/county/state/city tax revenues is good enough. Two potential solutions, neither mutually exclusive: 1) citizens band together and carry out threats to vote out local officials who start turning over houses to Walmart. 2) a new constitutional amendment to clarify the Takings Clause of the Fifth amendment. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-06-25 13:38 |
| #7 The difference is Public vs Private. The constitution makes an exception to the non-seizure of property for the necessary use of Public services. This has been seen as roads, sewage plants, etc., run by the local governments. I do feel this is necessary, simply for the fact we have no idea what 150 years from now will bring and the founders of Chicago could never have see the traffic problems of today. Thus, urban planning and new roads and highways. Where I am cheesed off to no end is the fact the SCotUS said now the governments can seize MY house to make room for a golf course or Wal-Mart. Some other PRIVATE company makes money from MY land. A developer can make a low-ball bid for my home, and I have to take it or loose everything if the government agrees. Good-bye equity, good-bye family home, and for what? So some other PRIVATE company can make money. Tactics like this were used heavy by the British in the 1800s to repress Ireland and the same tactic has been used by many other countries to silence a pocket of unruly people. Hard to get together when your group is spread throughout the country. Our founding fathers came from countries, which did this to their population and put in the Constitution protections against this form of repression. The ScotUS just threw that protection right out the window. One of our most cherished rights with freedom of speech and gun ownership and freedom to worship how we want/donât want. This is one of the few things that terrifies and sickens me. During the election, if Kerry won, it would have been horrible for our foreign policy and made our country less safe, but at the end of it all, we still would have been Americans with our rights. Despite everything that has happened in the past, we still had our rights and that made us Americans. This decision by the SCOTUS is threatening those rights. The rights that make us Americans. No nationality, religion, creed or way of life makes us whole except our god-given rights by the Constitution and the founding fathers. I swore an oath, to defend the Constitution of the United States of America to protect her, against all enemies. Foreign and domestic. The SCOTUS is rapidly falling into the domestic category since they have turned their back on their constitutional duty to uphold the constitution and are not making decisions based on that document. They are not the lawmakers, just the arbitrators, and this judicial theocracy that is coming about needs stopped. I still believe that all this can be solved through congress. Laws to limit judgeâs terms, votes by the people to add and remove judges, constitutional amendments to have the public vote on SCOTUS judges, just like their congressmen. However, time is rapidly running out for peaceful solutions. When people start loosing their homes, livelihood and wealth, just to satisfy the greed of local governments and corrupt business, they will rise up against it and then, God help us all. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-25 13:11 |
| #6 Actually, this has been commonplace for a long time and the Supreme Court just enforced it. The law says you have too have "Due Cause", not that you can't take it. And the homeowners have to be compensated fully. So in truth although it's unpopular, this was actually enforcing the law as crazy as it sounds. |
| Posted by: Charles 2005-06-25 12:12 |
| #5 Been listening to FOX for the last couple of hours and not a word.Not surprising,remember Fox and all the other major corps.are the ones who will benifit from this. CEO:"We need to build a new corporate headquaters,pack your sh^t and get out". |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-06-25 11:16 |
| #4 mmurray821 is right - there could be not greater incentive for revolution than the destruction of private property rights. The dissenting opinions in this case are brilliant. Is it me or has this decision received no airtime with the MSM? "Nope, nothing to see here. Move along." |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-06-25 10:35 |
| #3 mmurray821 - Ya know... that's interesting. A strip joint would generate more local revenue and employ more people than a mosque. Course the same might go for churches who give their money to the national church or world welfare instead of spreading it locally. So. Will Trump now show up at the Kennedy manision and demand it as it would earn and employ more as a casino? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-06-25 10:35 |
| #2 Can we seize the mosques now and build exotic dancing discos on top of them ? THAT would be for the greater good of the largest number ! (This could be called "creative use of commie sentences") |
| Posted by: Poitiers-Lepanto 2005-06-25 10:14 |
| #1 Is George W. Bush listening? He better be, as well as all the other spineless dipwads in the republican party. If the governments start taking way people's land, there WILL be a revolution. All of my 3 liberal friends are horrified by this ruling and one of them is seriously rethinking his anti-gun views. I also love telling him, "I told you so". |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-25 09:17 |