Supreme Court Moves Definition Of Eminent Domain Toward Fascism
In a truly shocking decision that transforms the U.S. Constitution from a guardian of liberty to an open door for fascism, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cities are constitutionally allowed to seize citizens' homes to serve the purposes of wealthy private developers. Ostensibly, this may only happen when the city has determined that it is necessary for the public good or economic development, and the city provide "just compensation" to Americans who are thrown out of their homes.
For thinking people, however, the reality is clear:
1. The sanctity of a citizen's home should reign supreme over the profit potential for wealthy developers.
2. City officials run the gamut from honest to downright corrupt, brilliant to numbingly stupid, just like national politicians do. Therefore they should never be granted the legal opportunity to destroy citizen's lives in return for graft, or out of sheer idiocy.
3. "Just compensation" is determined by the same potentially corrupt and/or stupid officials who make the decision to steal a citizen's home in the first place. What dollar value will they place on the emotional "value" of your family's ancestral home, the place where your children might have been born (or died), or the fact that you built the structure with your own hands over several decades? "Just compensation" is a meaningless term.
4. Poor people cannot afford to fight the legal battles necessary to keep their homes under this ruling, while wealthy people are more than capable of protecting their homes from being forcibly taken away from them.
5. Debtors who lose their homes and receive nothing more than a paltry "just compensation" are at terrible risk of debtors imprisonment, through no fault of their own.
6. If the Supreme Court had ever bothered to read U.S. founding documents, they might have noticed that one of the primary reasons the American colonies went to war against Britian was to protect their private property from being legally stolen by King George III and the mighty corporations that controlled the king. (Does this sound familiar to anyone, on several levels?).
One true American immediately made a serious proposal to seize Justice David Souter's home at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare, New Hampshire, in order to improve the local economy with a hotel. According to the developer's press release, "The proposed development, called 'The Lost Liberty Hotel' will feature the 'Just Desserts Café' and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged.'"
You may read the entire press release here, and I strongly encourage you to support their efforts in every way you can.
However, I have to believe that Souter has the power and connections to stop such a plan. And that is exactly what is wrong to the core with the Supreme Court's ruling: Poor people, and especially debtors, don't enjoy that kind of power....
All the best,
Paul
For thinking people, however, the reality is clear:
1. The sanctity of a citizen's home should reign supreme over the profit potential for wealthy developers.
2. City officials run the gamut from honest to downright corrupt, brilliant to numbingly stupid, just like national politicians do. Therefore they should never be granted the legal opportunity to destroy citizen's lives in return for graft, or out of sheer idiocy.
3. "Just compensation" is determined by the same potentially corrupt and/or stupid officials who make the decision to steal a citizen's home in the first place. What dollar value will they place on the emotional "value" of your family's ancestral home, the place where your children might have been born (or died), or the fact that you built the structure with your own hands over several decades? "Just compensation" is a meaningless term.
4. Poor people cannot afford to fight the legal battles necessary to keep their homes under this ruling, while wealthy people are more than capable of protecting their homes from being forcibly taken away from them.
5. Debtors who lose their homes and receive nothing more than a paltry "just compensation" are at terrible risk of debtors imprisonment, through no fault of their own.
6. If the Supreme Court had ever bothered to read U.S. founding documents, they might have noticed that one of the primary reasons the American colonies went to war against Britian was to protect their private property from being legally stolen by King George III and the mighty corporations that controlled the king. (Does this sound familiar to anyone, on several levels?).
One true American immediately made a serious proposal to seize Justice David Souter's home at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare, New Hampshire, in order to improve the local economy with a hotel. According to the developer's press release, "The proposed development, called 'The Lost Liberty Hotel' will feature the 'Just Desserts Café' and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged.'"
You may read the entire press release here, and I strongly encourage you to support their efforts in every way you can.
However, I have to believe that Souter has the power and connections to stop such a plan. And that is exactly what is wrong to the core with the Supreme Court's ruling: Poor people, and especially debtors, don't enjoy that kind of power....
All the best,
Paul
posted by Paul at 12:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home