SCOTUS Agrees With Wisconsin in the Taking of Private Property
This time it's SCOTUS and not the CONgress for a change. SCOTUS is rewriting the Constitution with new precedents that while they don't supercede the SUPREME LAW of the LAND, such precedents bend the Constitution by
making the job of Chief Justice more difficult to judge.
The case below will make it easier in future similar cases to steal property, i.e. take without compensation. Once upon a time, Chief Justices used the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and an in depth understanding of
Liberty to make judgements. Now, they don't care about the Constitution or Liberty.
On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held in
Kelo v. City of New London
that the government may seize private property and transfer it to another private party for economic development.
This type of taking
(Fifth Amendment�s Takings Clause)
was deemed to be for a �public use� and allowed under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Congress has failed to take meaningful action in the decade since this landmark decision and should, to the extent it is within the
power of Congress, provide property owners in all states necessary protection from economic development and closely related
takings, such as blight-related takings.
[Editor's Note: This opinion sets the foundation for
governments at all levels to take private property. Justification for "taking" can only be warranted based on proof of a given property's use for criminal
activity.]
An ARTICLE V Convention of States could reverse many of the past terrible Supreme Court decisions as well as limit the terms of
all federal judges and SC Justices to 12 years. Talk to your State Legislature!
Anyone who believes this country is free is an idiot!
Property owners have long suffered under the Supreme Court�s erratic rulings. It got worse today. In
Murr v. Wisconsin,
the Court ruled against the owners, 5-3, with
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority,
Chief Justice Roberts writing a dissent, joined by
Justices Thomas and
Alito, Thomas writing a separate
dissent, and Justice Gorsuch taking no part. The problem isn�t simply with the majority�s holding and opinion, it�s with the dissent as well. Only Thomas
points in the right direction.
This was a regulatory takings case arising under the
Fifth Amendment�s Takings Clause,
which prohibits government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. In separate conveyances in 1994 and 1995, the Murrs,
four siblings, inherited two contiguous lots on the St. Croix River that their parents had purchased in 1960 and 1963. The parents had built an ancestral
home on the first lot. They bought the second for investment purposes.
The trouble began in 2004 when the Murrs sought to sell the second lot, valued at $410,000, and use the proceeds to upgrade the ancestral home. But they
were blocked by a 1975 local zoning ordinance that treated the two lots as one, even though they had long been deeded and taxed separately. Under the
ordinance they had to sell the lots together or not at all. Out $410,000, the Murrs sued, claiming that the ordinance had deprived them of their right to sell
their property.
Here it gets complicated. In a 1992 decision,
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
a 5-4 Court held that David Lucas was entitled to compensation after an ordinance prohibiting him from building on his property effectively wiped out all of its value.
The problem with this �wipeout� rule, of course, is that most regulations leave at least some value in the property. When Justice Stevens called the rule �arbitrary�
since �the landowner whose property is diminished in value 95% recovers nothing,� Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, responded tersely,
�Takings law is full of these �all or nothing� situations.�
In so writing, Scalia was citing a 1978 decision,
Penn Central v. New York,
which gave us a balancing test that nobody understands, least of all Justice Brennan who crafted it. There that Court held that its test must be applied to
�the parcel as a whole,� not to some portion of it. Combined with Lucas, that makes all the difference in the world for the Murrs. If their lots are treated separately,
as they have always been except for this ordinance, virtually all value in the second has been wiped out and the Murrs, under Lucas, are entitled to compensation
for the taking. But with the two lots combined as one, value remains, so the state can escape paying the Murrs any compensation. Thus, the question before the
Court was whether the state could do that simply by treating the two lots as one.
Thomas joined the dissent
(p. 40)
because, as he wrote, �it correctly applies this Court�s regulatory takings precedents, which no party has asked us to reconsider.�
But he went on to say that �it would be desirable for us to take a fresh look at our regulatory takings jurisprudence, to see whether it can be grounded in the
original public meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.� Why take a fresh
look? Because the Court �has never purported to ground [its] precedents in the Constitution as it was originally understood.�
Justice Kennedy begins his opinion for the Court with Justice Holmes�s famous 1922 remark, that if a regulation goes �too far� it constitutes a taking—and
the opinion goes downhill from there, a mass of confusions. Roberts does a tolerable job of dissecting it, concluding that �today�s decision knocks the definition
of �private property� loose from its foundation on stable state law rules and throws it into the maelstrom of multiple factors� for determining when a taking occurs.
Correct, but Roberts himself does little better. In fact, he writes that the Court�s holding �that the regulation does not constitute a taking that requires
compensation � does not trouble him.� (emphasis added) It�s only the Court�s reasoning that�s troubling (and rightly so). Roberts would have vacated the judgment
below and remanded for the court to identify the relevant property using ordinary principles of Wisconsin property law.
But there, precisely, is the problem. State law defined the property. There were two lots, deeded and taxed separately, and that continued to the present.
But then state law redefined the property. It was the later local ordinance that combined the lots, effectively taking one of the most basic rights an owner has,
the right to dispose of (sell) that distinct second lot, bought for investment purposes. That was when the taking occurred, even though it wasn�t realized until
the Murrs tried to sell the lot. The rest of the analysis coming from Penn Central�s multi-factor balancing test—like whether the Murrs retained value in
�the parcel as a whole�—is just so much distraction from the core issue. And even if that were the question, it takes us back to Lucas�s error. Roberts� invokes
the metaphor that treats property like a �bundle of sticks,� signifying all the rights that go with property. Lucas held, wrongly, that compensation is due only
after the last stick is taken—the wipeout rule. No, a taking occurs with the first stick taken. The stick the Murrs lost was the right to sell that lot. It�s no more
complicated than that—unless the decision turns on a long line of mistaken precedents. One can only hope that Justice Thomas will one day have an opportunity
to write the opinion that sets this sorry record straight.
A new Congress has been seated, and it brings the prospect of perhaps, maybe, potentially, in a possible way doing something about the runaway federal deficits. And in other news, several New York area bridges are for sale, which you can acquire at a bargain price.
Excessive Spending Destroys!
Feds Have a Spending Problem — DO NOT RAISE THE CEILING!
Feds Have a Sewage Problem!
Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice ... when the court wasn't part of the L-E-J Cabal
Joseph Story (1779�1845) was born during the American Revolution, and came of age in the early years of the new United States of America. He was a scholar of the U.S. Constitution, and, eventually helped found the Harvard Law School.
In 1811, Story was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison � who knew a few things about the U.S. Constitution, in that he helped write it. Story was a contemporary of another famous member of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Marshall (1755�1835).
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
See the following links for more related articles:
[Editor's Note: what I have dubbed the "Legislative-Executive-Judicial Cabal" which the American People have caused by ignoring the generational transition from our Constitutional Republic to what now is, in effect, an "elected" dictatorship. Never mind who is elected. Never mind which bogus party is in power. The superficial, theatrically staged, choreographed appearance of debate, disagreement, and stalled legislation always resolves into more government and less FREEDOM. We the People still lose more freedom after every "emergency" or unnoticeably when CON-gress passes another general, open-ended law that enables the Executive (dictator) and its unaccountable agencies to formulate more freedom-restricting regulations (200 pages a day get posted to the Federal Register). The "Dictator's" agencies (police force) continue to pile-up more weapons to squelch uprising(s) when the People finally realize and understand their tyrannical government.
Currently, CONgress is just a group of socialists, progressives, and faux-conservatives (career politicians) that, on a daily basis, ignores the Constitution, many of their own past statutes, and cedes their responsibilities to the president ("elected" dictator). A comparison to the history of Rome becomes more and more credible with the Executive and its "featherbedded" lackeys gaining more power while CONgress sits back all fat-dumb-and-happy.
CONgress has made recent efforts to expose State Dept. failures in Benghazi (inept political leader), Fast-and-Furious gun-running (criminal AG), IRS 1st amendment violations, gov't union Veterans Administration fraud, and whining about Obama(Reid)-killer-Care, but these efforts are mostly politics as usual. Most "citizens" will forget about these infringements from our unaccountable, uncontrollable Executive branch with its tyrannical agencies staffed by socialist unions that extort "juicy" contracts from the "elected" dictatorship.
Most positions in the federal government whether elected, appointed, or hired are nominal, make-work jobs (confidentially) designed merely to grow government, bilk money from private businesses and citizens, and eventually fully transform America into a totalitarian state. When this happens, CONgress will have destroyed the economy and the country by their negligence and counter-liberty policies, and it will be almost impossible to Restore America. The 'Restore America' list is only a beginning too.]
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist Paper 47, Friday, February 1, 1788
Anyone who believes this country is free is an idiot!
"Extortion and thuggery are good things when they're called law!"
Larken Rose
[Editor's Note: a Constitutional Convention is required to reverse the damage to freedom and liberty since 1900. This Article V was ratified by the participants at America's founding Constitutional Convention as an alternate path for repairing damage to freedom and liberty, a path for the People to restore damage caused by our failed representatives in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of a government designed to represent the wishes of We the People.
The States must "demand" a Convention and explicitly specify an agenda of:
laws to be repealed or modified,
Amendments to existing constitutional clauses that define the co-equal branches to further specify and define, and
new Amendments or statutes to be eventually ratified by States.
These Amendments should further specify and clarify the powers of the Legislature and Executive Branches. A good example is the definition of a "Bill".
A Bill should contain ONLY verbiage in regards to the topic of the future law. NO earmarks and NO unrelated sections or attacments.
Many past Bills sent to a president for signature contained unrelated but essential funding sections that rendered the Bill veto-proof when it warranted a veto.
CON-gress can override a veto if the Bill is deemed absolutely necessary by CON-gress.
If the Bill requires SPECIFICALLY related amendments, the CON-gress can "debate" (with its usual theater) and vote any new amendments.
The original text of the Constitution contains some very GENERAL clauses enabling both CON-gress and Executive branches to write laws and
regulations with their particular nuances expanding powers beyond intent. "Intent" may be gleaned from a complete understanding of
Federalist Papers.
An example of further specification and clarity for CON-gress should be a clear, very specific definition of the boundaries for the interstate Commerce Clause.
To restore freedom, liberty, and individuality - minimally these must be repealed:
Currently, even with computer-searching systems, the list of antiquated and/or obsolete statutes (and related regulations) is unwieldy.
These statutes must be invalidated unless there remains an applicable reason for retaining the law(s).
Aside from invalidating statutes, there are many regulations that are biased in favor of large enterprises (who buy support from bureaucrats)
at the expense of the competition, effectively repressing the Free Market. Any regulations not related to public safety that gives a financial advantage
to some companies over their smaller rivals must be rescinded to enable all companies with good consumer products to excel without burdensome regulations.
Additionally, the Convention should adopt for ratification at least these new Amendments or statute modifications:
clearly define and limit the role of government in regards to the term "general welfare",
Term Limits for CON-gress (12 years) including a 6 month limit on time residing in DC,
strict Prohibition of Lobbying (with a comprehensive definition of "lobbying"), and
a Balanced Budget Amendment to stop wreckless spending. During a CON-gressionally declared "war" (only after USA is attacked or attack is proven "imminent"),
deficit spending is permissible.
Restore America to its roots, i.e. Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice. Some Agencies are required like CIA and NSA, both respectively focused on defense against real foreign aggressors and not fictitious paranoid delusions of war mongers. Other agencies help where certain interstate communications are necessary. Most agencies like Agriculture, Education, DEA, IRS (eliminated with 16th Amendment) and many other listed here should be eliminated.
Restore the world Gold Standard with five contentious steps, and
Replace the IMF, World Bank, and Export-Import Bank with facilities that reflect the new Gold Standard, and
After decentralizing and economizing, if tax revenue is needed to fund all or part of the federal government, then implement the Fair Tax.
Regarding a Constitutional Convention itself, some of the available literature warns the reader about a possible "unstructured" and "mismanaged"
Convention that might propose and adopt amendments that could damage the Republic.
Possible, however, it is difficult to envisage how much more damage could done over what the L-E-J Cabal has already done.
If the Convention's agenda and rules of order strictly prohibit violation of the rules and enable a vote on unlisted Amendments AFTER all others are adopted,
then the Convention will be properly structured and managed. ]
John Adams said, �Without [term limits] every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey�. That being said, here are some of the reasons we believe our country needs Term Limits.
Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests.
Term Limits will encourage regular citizens to run for office. Presently, there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.
Term Limits will break the power special interest groups have in Congress.
Term Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted.
Term Limits will bring diversity of people and fresh ideas to Congress.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, i.e. advance from a low paying government bureaucrat job on the local or state level, THEN GET ELECTED TO THE US CONGRESS (House or Senate). Once you're elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
CONVENTION of STATES (CoS)
CONVENTION of STATES
BECOME a MEMBER-PARTICIPANT of CONVENTION of STATES here.
Get into the Action; Get information. Join here.
The CONgress (by
Article V of the Constitution) has proposed and
States have ratified many new amendments to the Constitution, some that increase their power over us citizens. CONgress can propose amendments, and the
alternative method to CONgressional proposals can come from States via
Article V. When "We the People" — meaning
a very large majority — are opposed to Acts of CONgress like the INCOME TAX or ENDLESS WARS or the FEDERAL RESERVE, Acts that restrict and regulate our
LIBERTY, Acts that are a waste of money, Acts that have caused unrecoverable indebtedness, then through local representaatives of our States WE can propose
Amendments to be ratified by States just like CONgress.
STATES and the PEOPLE of America are very angry at the federal goverment's violation of its
constitutionally-defined boundaries. States created the federal government in 1787 with LIMITED powers defined in the Constitution. All powers not
given by States to the feds remain with the States by Article X. The feds have through deceit, distortion, and falsification rearranged the entire contractual agreement
between States and the federal government. The feds have become a very powerful, all consuming force in American government. The time has come for States to rein in the federal government,
to take power back, to limit the federal government's power, and to add some detailed restriction to the definition of CONgress, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
In 1787 a central government was (is) necessary only to provide for the common defense and ensure equality
under the law for all Citizens, to provide a final arbiter for the resolution of unsolvable problems among States and People. Most laws and regulations that the federal
government has wreaked on the States and the People are unconstitutional. States are independent, sovereign countries who realized the need for a limited and defined
central government to prevent wasteful duplication of effort. The federal government, in 2017, is OUT OF CONTROL, infringing and interfering with State sovereignty and their
separate economies. A problem arose in 2012 with Arizona's attempt to secure their border with Mexico. An article is
here. States can prevent infringements
by the federal government with an Aricle V Convention of States to not only reverse past federal government "power grabs" but prevent future federal government
violations of their Constitutionally-defined boundaries.
A new, well-organized group of volunteers in all 50 states have gathered to restore America to
its roots by limiting all 3 branches of the federal government with a
Convention of States (CoS) organization (alternate site,
CoS Action). This is a Convention of States to AMEND the Constitution — NOT rewrite it!
Recently, CoS held an Article V, Convention
simulation with appointed volunteers from all 50 States. The simulated Convention demonstrated how a well-organized CoS can vote for proposed amendments
to the Consitution that are popular enough to be ratified by the necessary 3/4ths of States (38). Obviously, only proposed Amendments that are likely to pass
both Houses of the legislatures of thirty-eight (38) States, that is, the required 3/4ths of States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution should be proposed.
See the Final Report here.
The purpose in a Convention of States, simulated or real, is to PROPOSE AMENDMENTS that give power back to the People. The proposed amendments must reflect the
thinking, objectives — the goals of people of States — who want to restore our Constitutional Republic to one that represents the people.
ARTICLE V Convention of States—Restore the Appropriate Balance!
ARTICLE V Convention of States—Restore the Appropriate Balance!
ARTICLE V Convention of States—Restore the Appropriate Balance!
A real CoS, requires that 2/3rds of States (34) send an "application" to CONgress requesting that
CONgress schedule a CoS. State Legislatures are composed of an Assembly and Senate. Each "house" must pass a bill separately and send the resolution to their
Governor. Then the State sends an "application" to the CONgress. When the federal CONgress receives applications from 34 States, the CONgress is required to set a date for
the Convention of States. CONgress is NOT involved otherwise. The States have the Convention, propose amendments, and dispatch the precisely worded amendments to
their respectives assemblies and senates for ratification. CONgress only schedules the Convention.
