NEWS FLASH: Justice O’Connor Retires
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor dissented, saying, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public.” She added “the words ‘for public use’ do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.” In other words, state and local officials can now take your home for another private person to use so long as they manufacture an argument that the latter use is more beneficial to the public.
Let’s look at a few examples of how this might play out. You and your neighbor have two-acre lots. Your combined property tax is $10,000. A nursing home proprietor tells city officials that if they condemn your property and sell it to him to build a nursing home, the city would get $30,000 in property taxes. According to last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, this plan would be construed as beneficial to the public, and you would have no recourse. Similarly, an environmental group might descend on public officials to condemn your land and transfer it to the group for a wildlife preserve. Again, a contrived public benefit for which you would have no recourse.
The court’s decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial nominees who might use Framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America’s socialists want more control over our lives, property and pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature; the courts are their only chance.There is nothing complex about those 12 words the Framers wrote to protect us from property confiscation. You need a magician to reach the conclusion of the court’s majority.
I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who would use Framer-intent in interpreting the Constitution might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don’t want to risk buckshot in the backsides.Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist.
One of the court’s majority should be resigning or be impeached.
Posted by Z Woof
07/01/2005 at 12:21 PM
Yes, Z. Very scary stuff. Those people are to be feared. Keep your rifles oiled.
So what members of the Party of Treason voted to protect our property rights? Anyone have access to a list? Bet the usual traitors voted to block it.
Posted by MAJ Mike
07/01/2005 at 02:47 PM
MAJ:
Here’s a link to the vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll350.xml
Not surprising my rep voted nay, the ass.
Posted by mt
07/01/2005 at 03:17 PM
At least Congress is doing something about it. That’s what the ‘checks and balances’ theory is all about. This ‘defunding’ threat is a stopgap measure, look for legislation clarifying eminent domain in the future. This decision has scared a lot of people and I’m sure all of the Congresscritters are hearing about it. This will not stand.
Check with Thomas’s Register, Maj Mike. They have all the voting on legislation. You might have to search for the bill/resolution number.
I’ve just posted a link to the amendment as well as the full text and a link to the role call vote in a new post at the top of this page.
Look in the right sidebar and about two-thirds of the way down you’ll see links to all the government web sites you could ever need, including House Votes.
Thanks for the link Maj M. I didn’t really want to search Thomas’s. My critter voted ‘aye’.
I see the moonbat contingent was well represented: Pelosi, Rangel, Kaptur, Dingell, McKinney, Kucinich, Obey, and Waxman all voted no.
Feel free to add any I might have missed. These are the names that stood out to me. I see them and my hair stands up. Not a pretty sight.
All the usual suspects indeed, Stin. Did you ever hear it said that a socialist is nothing but a communist infiltrating on his belly?
I’ve heard it now and I think it to be very appropriate. I’m going to hold that thought in the ready service locker.
Thank you, Stin. I have been thinking about this SCOTUS issue all evening, and it strikes me that Dubya has been saving something up his sleeve for just this sort of moment.
When the opposition is intent on committing hara-kiri, it is only courteous to lend them swords. And I suspect that Dubya has swords ready to lend.
What do you think?
I’m thinking that they’re determined to ‘misunderestimate’ him yet again. They
don’twon’t learn. I think it’s because they believe their ownliesspin.I think Charlie Rangel’s homesite would make a great place for a new NBA stadium. Nancy Pelosi’s homesite would make a great place for a cosmetic surgery clinic. Neither gets federal funds..... hmmmm....
This is going to get so nasty. But it’ll be fun to watch. Tanny, I agree that Dubya allowed them to commit sepukku. So fun to underestimate him. He’s just going to let the ‘common’ citizen take care of this now that the checks and balances have lighted the fires of hell.
Posted by Phoenix
07/01/2005 at 10:20 PM
