In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court finds that our rights are obsolete.
Jun. 23, 2005
When the First Amendment went by the wayside, there was a great cry in the land (for a short time). The Second Amendment’s departure ensured the compliance of the citizenry. Habeas Corpus was done away with for expediency without meaningful resistance, discussion or even awareness in many cases. Each can be rightfully considered a crime against the citizens of the United States, perpetrated by its own “representative” government. But these violations, as dire in consequence as they are in themselves, are only building blocks, preparing the way for the capstone.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has found that private property can be confiscated by means of "eminent domain” for virtually any reason. This nonsense all started in the 50’s when they found that the government should be able to confiscate land for “the public good” in addition to the already extant reason, “for public use”. In originality, eminent domain was used in order to secure land necessary for public use, such as for necessary roads, water treatment facilities, and other items of necessity for the public need. Since inception, this idea of eminent domain has been on the downward slippery slope, with new encroachments at regular intervals and more reasons the government can cite for taking private citizens’ land. Well, today eminent domain has found the end of the slippery slope; it has hit rock bottom and can go no further.
If I were to save up my money and purchase a property in a quiet middle class neighborhood, move in and live happily there for 20 or 30 years, develop friendships and sense of community and ultimately decide that this is where I would like to spend my remaining years, I can easily do so. Of course this is dependent upon the will of the government. If they decide that more tax revenue can be generated by demolishing my neighborhood and installing in its place a stack of condominiums, a strip mall, or any other feature, they can now use eminent domain to take my property and give it to land developers and corporations. If the city can make more money with a new Wal-Mart than they can with our neighborhood, the neighborhood can become the Wal-Mart. This is the meaning of the late finding of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps a large corporation relocates to my town, bringing with it higher paying jobs. Instead of finding places to build all of the new high-dollar houses, why not just get rid of some of the lower priced ones? They don’t pay near as much in property taxes. Our homes are no longer safe from the greedy eye of the government. Our guns and our voices are gone. All we have left is our property, but we no longer have any means to defend it or any law to defend us.
If I run a small storefront in town and the city decides that they could get more tax revenue by destroying my business and installing in its place a strip mall, they do not have to ask me whether or not I am willing to part with my store. Now they simply claim eminent domain, give me the amount of money they feel is appropriate, and then proceed to boot me off of my property so that they can expedite the building of the new facility and increase their tax revenue.
What about churches? They don’t pay any tax! Would it not be best to do away with this economic deadweight in favor of a new movie theatre or department store? The churches can move to the edge of town where no one really goes and the property value isn’t so high. It’s only economically sound.
The liberal community is at length pained to stress their defense of “the little guy”. They concern themselves in great degrees with the insistence that the big corporations and high-dollar interests should not be allowed to unfairly take advantage of “the poor”. How is it then that while every single conservative judge (plus the “swing voting” judge O’Connor) voted against this blatant defiance of the Constitution, every single liberal judge voted in favor of it? How does allowing corporations, land developers and other big-money interests the ability to take the property of individuals in order to expand their revenue help the little guy? Perhaps, given the late track record of liberal politicians, they figure there aren’t enough little people? Maybe they think they should work in a manner that creates more of them so they will get more votes? I don’t know. If someone can figure this out for me please let me know.
Put simply, none of us are allowed to own property in the United States. The government owns it (or rather, the local governments own it, with the federal government owning them). You are allowed to exist on “your” property indefinitely, provided you pay all of your property taxes (don’t pay the tribute and see how much you own) and do not live in an area where the city or the state feels can be put to better economic use “for the public good”. As long as they don’t want it, it’s yours; but the second they do you find out who really owns “your” property. Why not just end this now? Why not just burn the Constitution, eliminate the voting system and install as our leaders a hereditary lineage of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population? Acting like we live in a free country is a far cry from actually living in one. We can do away with law altogether in favor of the divine mandates of the aristocracy. Why not? No law can be so formulated as to keep them from circumventing it anyway, so what’s the point of having them? It’s time to make way for the new era in the United States; an era of perceived freedom; one in which the government puts us all on a long leash, shortening it only “when they have to”; one in which we are all grateful that we are not the ones whom the government chooses to impose itself upon today, cowering like lambs and praying that we will not be the target tomorrow. The time for warnings is now over. All that has been warned against has come to pass. We are now the land of the free so long as the government chooses to allow it, and the home of the brave in all cases except those which challenge the almighty decrees of the ruling aristocracy.
At some point in the past wasn’t the power of government checked by the will of the people? Weren’t there, at some time or another, certain mandates that could not be made?
Nah, it couldn’t be. Such a scene is unthinkable.