Article I Section VIII (R) Make Laws (Eminent Domain Discussion-also see Amendmt

[DennisLeeWilson]

Article I Section VIII (R) Make Laws (Eminent Domain Discussion)

Also see Amendment V for recommended PROHIBITION of Eminent Domain wording at this link:
http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=121.0
From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo  (Original Message) Sent: 2/11/2003 6:26 PM

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in [ ] brackets, and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.

Article I

SECTION VIII.

The Congress shall have Power


(R)  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the [United] Confederate States or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 9/29/2003 6:25 PM

Eminent Domain is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution but may possibly be implied from Section VIII.
 
200 years of history has amply demonstrated that the power of "Eminent Domain" is a corrupt and corrupting process and should be EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN at ALL (Federal, State, County and City) LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 9/29/2003 6:26 PM

Eminently Unfair
by Jim Lark
Libertarian Writers' Bureau Syndicate
September 29, 2003

Norwood, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati, is a battleground in a "dirty war" in which governments run roughshod over the rights of property owners.

There are more than 70 properties that lie within the eleven-acre area of the proposed Rookwood Exchange shopping and office development project in Norwood. Owners of seven of those properties have so far chosen not to sell to the project developers. The Norwood City Council is threatening to use the power of eminent domain to take the seven properties if the recalcitrant owners refuse to sell.

Should the city council vote to take the seven properties through eminent domain, it will be one more example in a depressingly long list of cases in which governments have used this power to take property from one private party to benefit another private party.

Eminent domain, as originally construed, meant the taking of private property by government for purposes that could reasonably be described as truly public; i.e., purposes that truly benefit all members of that society. Leaving aside questions of whether such purposes actually exist or whether eminent domain is morally justified even for such purposes, the use of eminent domain to take property from one private owner and transfer it to another should be regarded as profoundly wrong.

Many Americans became aware of the war in the 1990s when Donald Trump sought to enlarge the operations of the Trump Plaza and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Mr. Trump submitted an expansion plan to the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), a state redevelopment agency. Part of the area to be used in the expansion was already occupied by several small businesses and the home of Vera Coking, an elderly widow.

Ms. Coking, along with the owners of Banin Gold and Sabatini's Italian Restaurant, refused to sell their properties. When the CRDA initiated proceedings in 1994 to take the properties, the owners challenged the takings in court and were victorious. The victory was seen by many as a triumph of David over Goliath.

Dana Berliner is a chronicler of the war. She is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C. based organization which works to protect the rights of the individual against the state. Last April Ms. Berliner and her colleagues published Public Power, Private Gain: A Five-Year Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain. This book provides hundreds of examples in which eminent domain is used to benefit private parties who wish to acquire property from those who don't wish to sell (or don't wish to sell for the price offered).

Many examples provided by Ms. Berliner are horrifying. A common tactic by governments is to declare an area to be "blighted," and thus subject to condemnation. Those for whom the term "blight" evokes images of rat-infested, structurally unsound firetraps may be surprised to learn that the term could denote that your lawn is too small or your house doesn't have an attached two-car garage. (Property owners in the affected area in Norwood know about this tactic. They have placed photos of the properties in this area at www.norwoodblight.com/images/block_photos_pa/index.htm (stale link) and invite you to judge for yourself whether a "blight" designation is appropriate for their area.)

In some states, predatory governments can use "quick take" procedures, in which the government deposits with a court the amount the government considers a property to be worth, and then very quickly takes possession of the property. In some cases it is difficult for the property owner to obtain a hearing before government takes possession of the property.

As Ms. Berliner notes, many of the names of victims of the war will never be known, because those victims are forced by economic circumstances to capitulate. Many property owners decide that it is simply too expensive or too painful to fight against the seemingly limitless resources of government, and choose to sell.

The news is not all bad; indeed, many victims are now able to fight back, due to organizations such as the Institute for Justice. (On Sept. 23, the Institute filed suit against the City of Norwood on behalf of several citizens whose properties are in the "blighted" area.) A few battles have been won by the good guys, and information about the war is more easily available. Unfortunately, some of these battles were won not because people recognized the inherent moral failings of eminent domain, but because of narrow legal or procedural issues. Also, one wonders how many of those who celebrated the triumph of Vera Coking over Donald Trump would have been interested had Mr. Trump fixed his covetous eye upon a ten-acre estate owned by a wealthy family.

Will this war end soon? Probably not. As George Bernard Shaw observed, any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can count upon the support of Paul, and there are plenty of Pauls running loose.

-----------------------------------------------
About the author:
Jim Lark is a professor in the Department of Systems and Information Engineering at the University of Virginia. He served as the national chairman of the Libertarian Party during the 2000-2002 term.
 

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 6/24/2005 12:32 PM

  THE SOVEREIGN SOCIETY OFFSHORE A-LETTER
         Friday, June 24, 2005 - Vol. 7 No. 127
COMMENT: The Public Owns Your Home.

Dear A-Letter Reader:
The startling headline in yesterday's late news read: 'Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes.'

The article states: "Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans."

Four of the five justices who voted for this travesty are notorious liberals, but they were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who supposedly is (was) a 'conservative.'

The Chairman of the Sovereign Society, Jack Pugsley, writing in the forthcoming July 2005 issue of our members' monthly newsletter, The Sovereign Individual, did not know how prescient his words would be.

Here's what Jack writes: "Those of us at The Sovereign Society agree that the right of property is fundamental to civilization. In fact, the central tenet of our credo is that every individual has the natural right to keep, control, and dispose of his or her justly acquired property."

Jack went on to quote, William Howard Taft, 27th US president who said: "Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race."

Jack added this (and sadly he was right): "However, Taft was wrong saying the Constitution guarantees citizens’ right to property. The 5th Amendment states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus property is not sacrosanct. Your property is safe unless legislators decide someone else needs it more than you do." And now the US Supreme Court has said just that. Public use trumps private property.

In effect the Court has placed above the right to private property the politicians who operate at a level of government well known for corruption and highly susceptible to blandishments of construction companies and builders who dole our political donations and jobs.

This ruling turns American history on its head. Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" (1835/1840) said of property rights: "Why is it that in America, the land par excellence of democracy, no one makes that outcry against property in general that echoes through Europe?" His answer: "It is because there are no proletarians in America. Everyone, having some possession to defend, recognizes the right to property in principle."

Over two centuries American leftists and liberals have tried to make private property an object of scorn, even contending that owning property does not rise to the level of a civil right. Now five judges have ignored history and basic human rights. A full 70% of US residents own or are buying their own homes -- and now they are all in danger of government confiscation at the whim of politicians.

In truth, private property serves as the basis for all liberty, since without personal economic power, a job, a home, wealth, the individual cannot support himself or his or her family, and is far more prone to government control -- just as liberal statists love to have it.

If ever there was a case to be made for a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court decision, this is it.

That's the way it looks from here.
Bob Bauman, Editor

PS: For information about how to protect your property, click here:
    LINK: http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/SVS/WSVSF602/
========================================================================
COMMENT LINKS:
* Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes.
  LINK: http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2109340.html
  LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html

* Top Court's Less Than Landmark Ruling.
  LINK: http://www.forbes.com/business/services/2005/06/23/pfizer-kelo-scotus-cx_da_0623kelo.html

========================================================================
 

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 7/4/2003 12:25 PM

Proposed modification to Constitution:

In order to maintain and assert the authority of the individual sovereign states over the Federal government, the Seat of the Federal Government--including the Executive and both houses of Congress--should be hosted--for the period of one calendar year--in turn by the individual states in rotation in alphabetical order (rather than having the Cession of a District for that purpose). The activity of the Federal government is to remain small enough that they may utilize the facilities of the host state only during those times when the host state is in recess.

[DennisLeeWilson]

Excerpted from
Killing the Commissar: The Limits of Submission
by William N. Grigg Wednesday, January 27, 2010
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/01/killing-commissar-limits-of-submission.html
In December 2006, Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the unsuccessful lawsuit to prevent the NLDC's larceny, sent the thirty people most deeply involved in that crime (a clique that could be considered a New London analogue to the Thirty Tyrants of Attic antiquity) a Christmas card that conjured every species of misfortune and hardship as punishment for their crimes.



As former real estate developer Don Corace writes in his recent book Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights and How We Can Fight It, Susette Kelo's experience is entirely typical of the afflictions being visited on nominal property owners nation-wide -- people who suddenly and unexpectedly collide with the grim reality that what they own can be seized at any time by those with abundant political connections and no identifiable scruples.


"Arrogant and corrupt city and county officials -- with near limitless legal budgets ... continue to align themselves with well-heeled developers, political cronies, and major corporations to prey on the politically less powerful and disenfranchised, particularly minority communities," summarizes Corace.


Eminent domain "abuse" (if that word applies to a perfectly predictable application of an innately illegitimate power) is just one of many ways that property can be blatantly stolen through political means: "Through local zoning and the regulation of wetlands and endangered species, governments take property without compensating owners and also extort land and money in return for approvals."