Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
Now is the time for a Congress to defend the Constitution and impeach these Justicesand The President!
25 Jun 2005
Modified: 07:59:04 AM
You're a Veteran and you were lucky to survive fighting for America's good, and you managed to buy some property for your family, by the ocean.
According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, another private owner who pays more taxes than you, can take your land supposedly for the public good.
This commentary is based on the following article appearing today in www.worldnetdaily.com.
You are a happy positive person who sees the good in government, and the sun is shining over your sky, as you relax by your home by the Sea.
Along come some developers, who go to court to take your property because they want to build a resort, The Supreme Court told you to pack up, and move because they pay more in tax!
Now is the time for Congress to act and impeach these Unjustices!
Now is the time for the Congress to Act!
Now is the time for Congress to impeach the Oilarchy!
See previous article Grounds for Impeachment: Failure to Protect the Constitution!
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Justices 'erase' key clause
Breyer: Any seizure of private property could benefit public
Posted: June 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Comments by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer during oral arguments in the landmark Supreme Court property-rights case appear to support Justice Clarence Thomas' assertion that the ruling essentially has erased a key clause from the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
The 5-4 decision Thursday allows a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development.
The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban renewal. But officials in New London, Conn., argued that private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted.
In his addition to the dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote: "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."
Breyer, who sided with the majority, appears to make Thomas' point in an exchange with Scott G. Bullock of the Institute For Justice in Washington, D.C., which represented New London residents whose homes are slated for demolition in favor of an office complex.
Bullock argued that for more than 200 years, the court has recognized "that there are limits on eminent domain power, that they cannot be used for private cases."
But Breyer, citing the late Justice William O. Douglas, says, "as long as it's an objective within Congress and legislature's legitimate grant of power, they can do it, I mean, as long as there's a – so why does there have to be a limit within that broad limit?
The exchange continued:
BULLOCK: Well, Your Honor, the limit is that there cannot be takings for private use.
BREYER: Of course, there can't, purely. But there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, et cetera.
That's a fact of the world. And so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is and it's up to the legislature.
BULLOCK: Your Honor, we think that that cuts way too broadly.
BULLOCK: Because then every property, every home, every business can then be taken for any private use.
BREYER: No. It could only be taken if there is a public use and there almost always is. Now, do you agree with that, or do you not agree with my last empirical statement?
BULLOCK: Well, again, the eminent domain power is broad, but there has to be limits.
BREYER: Now, that's, of course, my question. The question is, if you agree with the empirical statement that there almost always is some public benefit attached, then my question is, why must there be a limit within that broad framework?
BULLOCK: Well, Your Honor, I think with public -- with just having a simple public benefit, then there really is no distinction between public and private uses. And that is what we call upon this Court to state, for instance, in the Berman case and in the Midkiff case, which we think are really the outer limits of government's eminent domain.
Writing in dissent of Thursday's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said cities shouldn't be allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.
"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."
Along with Thomas, O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens 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."
Along with Breyer, he was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
O'Conner's concerns about large corporations wielding power over small businesses came out in this exchange during the oral arguments.
Scalia asked the lead attorney for New London, Wesley W. Horton, whether it would be "OK to take property from people who are paying less taxes and give it to people who are paying more taxes."
"That would be a public use, wouldn't it?" he said.
Before Horton could answer, O'Conner broke in.
O'CONNOR: For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?
HORTON: Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay. I – because otherwise you're in the position of drawing the line. I mean, there is, there is a limit. I mean –
JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Well, if that, if that's so then the occasional statements that we see in the writing that you can't take from A to give to B is just wrong?
HORTON: No. I don't agree with that. A good example is – well, there is Missouri Pacific.
KENNEDY: You think you can't take from A to give to B, that there is some substance and force to that proposition?
HORTON: There is some force to it. I certainly wouldn't
SCALIA: Let me qualify it. You can take from A to give to B if B pays more taxes?
HORTON: If it's a significant amount. Obviously, there is a cost –
SCALIA: I'll accept that. You can take from A and give to B if B pays significantly more taxes.
HORTON: With that –
JUSTICE SCALIA: You accept that as a proposition?
HORTON: I do, Your Honor.
High court's property decision stirs anger
This work is in the public domain
Re: Now is the time for a Congress to defend the Constitution and impeach these Justicesand The President!
(No verified email address)
26 Jun 2005
Posted: June 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
John Prescott, deputy prime minister, told the House of Commons that 10,000 homes would be demolished in a $2 billion program to create "sustainable communities." This massive "Pathfinder" program has been adopted to transform the UK into sustainable communities, a major step toward compliance with goal seven of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals and further implementation of the U.N.'s Agenda 21.
A similar program is under way in the United States, but proponents are careful to deny that the U.N. has any influence or involvement. The facts tell a different story.
In 1976, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) was held in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Among the recommendations endorsed by the U.S., and adopted, are these:
A (1) (b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population ... over the national territory.
(c) (v) Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.
D (1) (a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of ... achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.
(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.
(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements. ...
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted Agenda 21, also endorsed by the U.S. Chapter seven, on human settlements, says:
7.4. The overall human settlement objective is to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rural poor. These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies.
What could possibly be wrong with this objective? It requires government to make all the decisions about where and how people must live, rather than a free market.
The promotional literature in England [a .pdf document] blames "market failures" for slums and degraded housing that the government must now step in to improve.
Actually, slums and degraded housing are not market failures; they are simply the evolving market at work. As people enter the work force, often they can only afford slum or degraded housing. But as they climb the economic ladder, they move to better housing, fueling the real estate and construction industries. When the slum area becomes so bad that no one wants to live there, the price of the property becomes very attractive to developers, who buy up the slums and replace them with properties that the developers hope to sell to new buyers. That's the way the market worked – until the latter part of the 20th century.
After the 1976 U.N. meeting in Vancouver, governments began to take a more active role in community development. The 1981 "Poletown" decision, in Michigan, allowed a city to take the homes of 4,200 people. Since then, governments, at every level, have created dozens of ways to gain "public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest," as recommended in the 1976 U.N. document.
Now, under the guise of improving the lives of everyone and protecting the environment, government, in England and in the United States, is taking control over the housing decisions of everyone. The fine print in the housing section of virtually every "comprehensive plan" proposed or adopted in recent years contains language that gives government the authority to dictate minute details, often including colors that may be used and the type of vegetation that must be used in landscaping. In King County, Wash., 65 percent of a private owner's land must be unused and left in natural condition.
The recent Supreme Court decision to rule eminent domain for city business shows who's kissing up to them in their Kosher breakfasts:
An American Veteran who risked his life fighting for the defense of America's good, can be forced to evacuate his home if some Big business group decides they want to improve the area.They now have the Supreme Court in their pocket too.
These are the Same Not SEEs that decided BUSH was Prez. Ropcerfellers' New World Order UN