• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Private property rights now non existant.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The Liberal supreme court has handed our rights over to big business, under the guise of the betterment of economic developement, Just when every liberal media outlet had convinced me that the conservative court was going to destroy our way of life, the damn liberals went and stomped all over the constitution. My and every American can now worry a little more every time some big winded devoloper spins a story to a city commision about some high and mighty , gonna save us all plan and make the city rich, especially if your little ranch is in the way.

The court has precisely three conservatives: Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor are wild cards. Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are liberals. One so-called moderate, O'Connor, leans heavily liberal. But look how the vote went for big business and against the lowly property owner...

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050623%2F1207643294.htm&sc=1333&ewp=ewp_news_0605seize_homes

WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday 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 often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing ``disproportionate influence and power'' to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.

``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,'' Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

``It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area,'' he said.

O'Connor 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,

Seems to me the liberal judges sided with Big business and big goverment against the little guy dispite what Our countries founders wrote:



James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

Until THe liberals set out to take it,,,,
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,150
Reaction score
26
Location
BC
And if you get really really mad and decide to protest by burning your flag.... looks like your government is taking that right away from you too.
Starting to sound suspiciously socialist.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Silver, Neither Steve nor I feel compelled to burn the American flag, especially to promote freedom. We are discouraged by erosions in liberties, but burning the very symbol of freedom makes no sense.

Steve, this is bad law. The result is odious for sure, but this holding is inconsistant with long established values. Ginsberg will never oppose anything that increases government power and scope.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
ez now said:
Jinglebob said:
The question is, what can we do to reverse or stop this ruling?
vote democrat

You obviously weren't paying attention,ez now. The conservative justices were pro private property rights. The liberals voted to allow big business to take over private property for the "overall good", which means more tax collections in order to expand government and to hell with the "little guy" property owner. The Dems don't give a flying ____ about private property ownership, unless it's that of the party elitists. To overturn this individual states must pass laws protecting private property rights(ballot initiatives most likely) or a similar case must be ruled on by the Supreme Court with a dissimilar outcome.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tuesday, June 28, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Developer seeks
Souter's property
Looks to build 'Lost Liberty Hotel' at home of Supreme Court justice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 28, 2005
1:45 p.m. Eastern



By Ron Strom



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A private developer has contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Yesterday, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.


Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized among property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clement, the proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, "featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." Instead of a Gideon's Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site – "being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.


Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Ez Now,

maybe you can explain how voting for the Jackasses who appointed these Jackasses, will help in protecting our rights?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
What to do is indeed the question. Now, as it was 300 years ago, standing up for right and good is expensive. I read of the great fortunes lost by the signors of The Declaration of Independance. There were many weathy and powerful men at the time that believed in freedom, but not enough to sacrifice treasure for it. Its easy for the homeless, poor, least fortunate in society to stand up for liberty as they stand to lose little, but its also easy to dismiss their efforts. Liberty must be valued by those of us that stand to lose a great deal for standing against tyranny. My dad was removed from the board of dirrectors at the bank for demanding the county commission stand accountable for county sheriff misconduct. Who's going to bell the cat is and will always be the issue.

I say stand against tyranny and corruption at every instance because liberty is the only thing that makes treasure worth having, but I hesitate to instill this thinking in my children. The Japanese have a saying that translates to "the peg that stands up gets knocked down"
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,245
Reaction score
18
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Brad S: "I say stand against tyranny and corruption at every instance because liberty is the only thing that makes treasure worth having, but I hesitate to instill this thinking in my children."

Brad, why do you hate to instill this thinking in your children? These are the very thoughts that I am trying to instill in my children.

Sure, I would like my boys to someday take over the family ranch, but I want this to be their choice and not mine. But on more serious issues such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, I will maybe be a bit more forceful on trying to instill my values into them. Freedom is worth fighting for, both in military strength and in the principles we stand upon.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Soapweed,

I hesitate to instill a yearning to stand against tyranny in my children because I see a relentless dimunition in liberties. I think Thomas Jefferson would be incarcerated as an enemy of the state if he lived today, and pragmatically I don't know that I want to raise my children to be that out of touch with mainstream society. So when the horde starts in with "you wouldn't object to warrentless searches if ya didn't have anything to hide," I don't know that I want my kids trying to explain the high minded constitutional principles at stake against the thunder of a lynch mob.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Brad S,
I guess I understand what you mean, but it's too late for me. My kids, all six of them, are staunch conservatives who believe in God, personal responsibility, individual rights and limited government. There’s no hope for them, and I couldn't be more proud.
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
Ez Now,

maybe you can explain how voting for the Jackasses who appointed these Jackasses, will help in protecting our rights?
1 Sandra Oconnor republican appointed by Reagan
2 Anthony Kennedy republican appointed by Reagan
3 David Souter republican nominated by Bush
4 Ruth Bader democrat nominated by Clinton
5 Stephen Breyer democrat nominated by Clinton

my calculation is 3 to 2 let me say again VOTE DEMOCRAT
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
ez now said:
Steve said:
Ez Now,

maybe you can explain how voting for the Jackasses who appointed these Jackasses, will help in protecting our rights?
1 Sandra Oconnor republican appointed by Reagan
2 Anthony Kennedy republican appointed by Reagan
3 David Souter republican nominated by Bush
4 Ruth Bader democrat nominated by Clinton
5 Stephen Breyer democrat nominated by Clinton

my calculation is 3 to 2 let me say again VOTE DEMOCRAT
P.S Steve maybe you can explain the Jackass comment ,I didnt understand
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ez now said:
ez now said:
Steve said:
Ez Now,

maybe you can explain how voting for the Jackasses who appointed these Jackasses, will help in protecting our rights?
1 Sandra Oconnor republican appointed by Reagan
2 Anthony Kennedy republican appointed by Reagan
3 David Souter republican nominated by Bush
4 Ruth Bader democrat nominated by Clinton
5 Stephen Breyer democrat nominated by Clinton

my calculation is 3 to 2 let me say again VOTE DEMOCRAT
P.S Steve maybe you can explain the Jackass comment ,I didnt understand

Actually if you look at this "so called Liberal court" you will find that 7 of the 9, including the Chief Justice were appointed by Republican Presidents :? :? :wink:
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
ez now said:
Steve said:
Ez Now,

maybe you can explain how voting for the Jackasses who appointed these Jackasses, will help in protecting our rights?
1 Sandra Oconnor republican appointed by Reagan
2 Anthony Kennedy republican appointed by Reagan
3 David Souter republican nominated by Bush
4 Ruth Bader democrat nominated by Clinton
5 Stephen Breyer democrat nominated by Clinton

my calculation is 3 to 2 let me say again VOTE DEMOCRAT
:roll: For TOO many years I have observed, with absolute dismay, :shock: :???: :mad: :mad: the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS obfuscating Truth, Reality, Common Sense, Reason, Pragmatism and the Principles of Liberty for POLITICIAN'S own reasons - those reasons being: POWER and MONEY!! :twisted: :twisted: A POLITICAL fact of life: many Appointees to the Supreme Court, after they have been on the Bench for a period of time, become sanctimonious and seem to lose their resolve and their purposefulness in[/b]interpreting The LAW and the Constitution of the United States and LURCH into shrewdly CRAFTING The LAW and their conception of their duty as a Supreme Court Justice. Case in point: 1-Sandra Day O'Connor 2-Anthony Kennedy 3- David Souter. These three so-called "Conservatives" demonstrated the above-mentioned 'symptoms' soon after their confirmation to the Court. Perhaps it is EGO, perhaps it is HUBRIS, perhaps it is AUDACITY - whatever - it is exemplified by these three Supreme Court Judges to the degradation of our Judicial System, and, unfortunately, gullible zealots such as ez now succumb to deceptive political rhetoric. This post is a prime example - IMO. :)
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
ez now said:
ez now said:
1 Sandra Oconnor republican appointed by Reagan
2 Anthony Kennedy republican appointed by Reagan
3 David Souter republican nominated by Bush
4 Ruth Bader democrat nominated by Clinton
5 Stephen Breyer democrat nominated by Clinton

my calculation is 3 to 2 let me say again VOTE DEMOCRAT
P.S Steve maybe you can explain the Jackass comment ,I didnt understand

Actually if you look at this "so called Liberal court" you will find that 7 of the 9, including the Chief Justice were appointed by Republican Presidents :? :? :wink:
But dont be a quillible zealot and succumb to all the deceptive political rhetoric
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ez now said:
Oldtimer said:
ez now said:
P.S Steve maybe you can explain the Jackass comment ,I didnt understand

Actually if you look at this "so called Liberal court" you will find that 7 of the 9, including the Chief Justice were appointed by Republican Presidents :? :? :wink:
But dont be a quillible zealot and succumb to all the deceptive political rhetoric

I laugh everytime I hear people complain about our "liberal" Supreme Court that was mostly appointed by Republicans taking away our rights- but then those same people are usually promoting all these NAFTA's, AFTA's, CAFTA's that are doing more harm to our sovereignty and taking away more rights than any "liberal" US court could do.... These binding WTO decisions will be made in Brussells or Paris by foreigners that we won't even have any input in putting in place- and the way we keep signing these forever lasting treaties, our kids and grandkids won't ever get to know what freedom is..........
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
IN the reagan era and under Bush Senoir, the make up of the congress and senate was democratic led, and the demand for a "suitable" canidate led to the nomination of "moderate" Judges, I have often voted for a person that showed promise, and seemed to be inline with my views, only to see the person change ( or show his/her true nature) once elected, by allowing Justices that clearly show a bias to a political view and disregard the law allows our individual rights to be taken is wrong and should never be tolerated,

My point to show that the Liberal justices disregarded our property rights is clear, the nomination process and the Justices nominated during years of Democratic controled houses, was a conpromise to get them past the committee process, evidenced by the continueing battle to appoint Judges today,

Point to Note: Justice O' conner sided with Property owners in this instance,

seems ironic that any American would not be outraged by this decision, irrigadless of Party affiliation, But then again if you believe that big goverment or big business know whats best for the developement of your property, and that this was a good decision why not just send some corperation your signed deed.
 

Latest posts

Top