Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Norm will say it because someone needs to..

By Norm Davis

The Supreme Court has ruled! The media is re-ruling or doing some kind of interpretation that I do not understand. According to the media, nobody’s land or home is safe from the rich or the corporations.

          The radio shows with the experts, including “His Majesty, Rush Limbaugh”, have said that it is a ‘welfare program’ for the rich corporations. I have heard it all and I think they are full of stinky stuff.

          Read what the ‘Opinion of the Court’ said. Read it for yourself and check their references. Have an attorney friend go over it with you. I have done so. I have had a few people read it, especially those first couple of days. I read the opinions, Opinion of the Court, Kennedy Concurring, O’Connor Dissenting and Thomas Dissenting.

          After about the third reading I still could not believe what I had read. I thought, “I needed a vacation”! I think that is what they are called. My beautiful wife says that is what they are called and that I haven’t had one of them in about 15 years. I thought my time for one; vacation that is, had come, as I did not see what all the experts had seen.

          I thought to myself, “They must know what they are talking about, they are experts! They are the people and groups we depend on for information. Where am I going wrong?” Oh well, so much for my opinion let’s look at my take on this opinion.

          One thing for sure, they, the Court, agree that it is a local legislative function and not a federal issue other than to protect from one individual, being it person or corporation, benefiting at the expense of the other. As they said,

“…. the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 (“A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use require­ment; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void”); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Ne­braska, 164 U. S. 403 (1896).⁵ Nor would the City be al­lowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. “

          Getting back to the states rights issue brought up by the Court on page 12 of the ‘Opinion of the Court’ we see,

Viewed as a whole, our jurisprudence has recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, empha­sizing the “great respect” that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs. See Hairston v. Danville & Western R. Co., 208 U. S. 598, 606– 607 (1908) (noting that these needs were likely to vary depending on a State’s “resources, the capacity of the soil, the relative importance of industries to the general public welfare, and the long-established methods and habits of the people”).¹¹  For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intru­sive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad lati­tude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

     On page 17 of the Opinion we see,

“When the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings—no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation—are not to be carried out in the federal courts.”

          Legitimate, being where no one particular person benefits at the expense of another and the state law they had to rule on allowing ‘takings’ to happen for a public purpose to benefit the community as a whole. The Court ruled the state law was not violated and no one individual was given benefit. This is what they had to rule on and they did, properly so, in my opinion. They also said that it was not the federal court’s responsibility to handle this type of issue did they not?

          No, I do not like land to be taken personally but the court had the above to rule on. Once ‘public purpose” was satisfied and that no one particular person was benefiting, then they, the Courts, had no other choice but to rule as they did.

          At least the Court did make me happy stating over and over that it was a state issue instead of a federal court issue. So if you want to blame anyone for this mess then blame the people of Connecticut for allowing laws that would allow this to happen.

          It is a horrible thing for these people to lose but then again, they allowed it by not being active in their Legislature. They now need to get off of it and get organized into an effective group. Join in with those fighting these problems and do something. If they don’t, then they have no reason to complain as they have brought it on themselves and allowed it to happen. Get involved in the elections. If a candidate is not pro-property rights then get rid of him or her.

          Getting back to the case I want to point out just a few more quotes from the Court.

Page 18 of the Opinion of the Court;

Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch.” Berman, 348 U. S., at 35–36.

Page 19 of the “Opinion of the Court” says

We emphasize that nothing in our opin­ion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,²² while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which tak­ings may be exercised.

There are numerous other quotes conferring these cases on ‘takings’ to the states but space prohibits all that I would like to list and/or quote.

          In my opinion, which I occasionally do have, I see this as a case of a bunch of people not doing their jobs as citizens. If you, the citizen, sit on your duff and do not get involved in what is happening then what else can you expect?

          There are good people working to change things or take back their states all over America, but it takes more than a dozen or so people to get the job done. You need to get on the Internet and find these groups and people. Form groups in your local area to see to it that your officials do not allow what has happened in Connecticut to happen in your town, county or state.

          If you are too lazy to become active the least you can do is send an occasional donation to those that are doing the work. You surely can help them by making a phone call or sending an email once in a while so that your officials will know they are being watched.

          One thing you can do is get on the net and go to:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

          Now, read the decision for yourself instead of depending on the so-called experts and the ‘talking heads’ on an agenda. Then get busy and do something.

          We at Take Back Kentucky and the associated groups have been working on this problem. We had a hearing in April before the Legislative Interim Committee on the Judiciary. There are to be more with nearly all of the legislators present agreeing we have problems and there is legislation needed.

          We asked that a Task Force to study this problem be formed. The committee said that instead of spending money on a Task Force that they themselves will come up with legislation to protect our people’s property rights. This is a step in the right direction.

          When the people and the legislators work together then you truly have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. When the people sit at home and do nothing but complain you have problems such as the people of New London, Connecticut have and worse.

          Remember and don’t forget that these legislators are people too. The overwhelming majority of them take their job very seriously and want to do the best job they can. They do not want bad laws any more than you or I do. They know that what they do will affect them and their loved ones for the years to come.

          When legislation is before them they must go by what they are told about the particular bill. If citizens are not there to tell them the bad you can bet the others, lobbyists and bureaucrats, will not. They will only tell them why the bill is needed as they see it.

          You should take upon yourself to express your feelings and thoughts to them. If you do not then the laws will be made based on what the special interest lobbyists and bureaucrats want. These people couldn’t care less what you, John and Jane Doe, want! The bureaucrats want to create and justify their jobs and the lobbyists want their legislation usually for monetary gain.

          Only you and others you join with can protect your interests as citizens.

          So to wrap up this far too long of an article, it is strictly up to we the people to protect our property. As I have stated thousands of times across America, “Get off of it and get busy or you will get what you deserve, the best government money can buy. By the way, don’t listen to all these prophets of gloom and doom, just get busy.”

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN