Personal Property Rights
People have been asking me why I have not commented on the Supreme Court's ruling last week about personal property. Simply, I have a very strong opinion on this that I am not willing to post in a public area for fear I will have the FBI knocking on my door to haul me off. That said, I will leave it to your imagination what my opinion might be.
posted by Calan at 09:52
7 Comments:
This is an issue that was condemned by almost everyone, from the far left to the far right, including myself. But , what stood out the most, at least to me, was the reaction of conservatives. They attacked the Supreme Court like the decision came straight from Moscow. The Court said that eminent domain was a constitutional right for basically ANY REASON the state deems is for the public good. But in this decision the court also said there is no law or reason that prevents the state from imposing limits on itself on this right. So to me this makes eminent domain a states rights issue. If there is one thing that conservatives rant about it is states rights and their response to this decision was surprising. And judging from blog traffic it’s an issue that’s fading fast. So you’re probably right in keeping quit and the FBI at bay.
Any way, the political war of the world is starting, it should be interesting to say the least.
Patches,
I have to agree that this SHOULD be a state issue, and that the federal government should not get involved (which on the surface appears to be what is happening). However, the federal government has been using the state rights issue to its advantage since the Civil War. Technically, there is a Constitutional Amendment, the 14th, that pretty much does away with most state rights. I don't agree with it, but it's there and I have to respect it until an amendment is put into place that removes it or its offending sections. Here is the text of the amendment that does the most damage:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Again on the surface this sounds like a great civil rights thing. But it is as deceptive as the Patriot Act. This means that if U.S. Congress can't do it, then neither can the states. It twists the role of the Constitution, the federal government, and the state governments. This basically switched, or at a minimum equalized, the power of local state government with the federal government. This also opened the door to the federal government getting into all of our lives because now the difference in powers between the federal level and the state level became blurred. Ever since then the federal government has used this to impose all sorts of unconstitutional laws. Laws that SHOULD have been left to the states who now largely have their hands tied. The federal government has abused this to no end, because they use it when it is to their advantage (such as this recent ruling) and ignore it when it doesn't suit them (such as gun control laws).
Technically, if the federal government can't seize land, then neither can the states.
The 14th Amendment is the cause of many of the constitutional problems we face today, simply because it "disarmed" the states’ powers. According to the Constitution, the federal government can't make ANY law unless the Constitution says it can (which means MOST federal laws are illegal). According to the 14th amendment, the states are now bound to nearly all of the same restrictions. If a state is going to pass any law now, it must find a way to skirt the Constitution. The way this is done is to invert the intent of the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say the government can't, then it can. This is WRONG, but if you want law and order under the 14th Amendment, then it is necessary to see it that way, simply so that states can pass traffic laws for example (not prescribed by the Constitution, therefore not Constitutional). The Constitution must now be twisted and reinterpreted to allow for these basic laws, because it was written as a restriction to the federal government and was not intended to be imposed on the states.
In this way the 14th Amendment BROKE the Constitution, and I believe intentionally- it was put into place during a time when the federal government was trying to gain power over the states. Now the federal government has as much power as the states to impose laws like this, and vice versa. But it is IGNORED whenever it removes rights from the people- they are the government after all. And while I generally like giving the states the power to decide issues like this, it disgusts me that the law is ignored in the Supreme Court and they rule simply based on what they think "should be." They are NOT legislature. The state can't take land any more than the federal government can. While I don't like what the 14th does, it's still the law. If it's not working it should be removed through the amendment process (yeah right), but certainly not ignored.
By the way, for the true intent of the Constitution, read Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I don’t think this ruling had much or anything to do with the right of governments to eminent domain that is a Constitutional Right. This ruling dealt more with “what is the public good” The court more or less said that “public good” is whatever the government says it is, but the court also said there is no reason or law for the state itself to put limits on this right. This ruling in my mind defused the argument of eminent domain limiting state rights. I would think that any time the Supreme Court comes out with a ruling that the states have a right to control an issue, should be considered more of a victory for then a defeat of State Rights. I also don’t think this ruling had anything to do with federal rights to eminent domain. The ability of the states to limit this power to itself would have no affect on the Federal level. Now if the Supreme Court would have ruled that the states had no right to limits this power, well that would be a different story.
Isn’t it a bit of a stretch linking eminent domain to the 14th Amendment?
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Do you really want the state to have the right to do these things? Limit due process, limit equal protection? You have to remember that the states did limit these rights, the very reason the amendment was deemed necessary.
Also, I’m fairly sure that the signers of the Constitution when they wrote “public good” meant "civic" not "private good." So in this sense it was a terrible decision, but one that could have been worse. But, what can we expect from a government that is more and more for and by multi-national corporations, then for or by the people.
From CSM
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0706/p01s03-uspo.html
Sorry it has taken me a while to post, I have been extremely busy lately.
No I don't think this is a stretch to call this a 14th amendment issue. This is a "states rights" issue after all... my point there is that they pick and choose when they want to honor it or ignore it- whatever takes control and rights away from the people.
Post a Comment
<< Home