Sunday, June 26, 2005

A Man's Home Is His Castle

Government is now entirely unencumbered when it comes to evicting a man from his castle--and giving that castle to someone else. In America!

It boggles the mind.

A commenter left information about the Castle Coalition, an organization that seems focused on fighting eminent domain abuses. I've yet found no reason to believe they're a front group for Communists or any other bad guys so I joined up.

Update, 6/27/05 6:52pm: Here's the original post I wrote on the subject.

6 comments:

Aaron Hanscom said...

Thanks for the link. I'll be sure to pass it on.

EdWonk said...

It's actually worse. Someone who wants your land for development can make you an offer to sell. If you reject it, that developer can go to one or more of his pals on your local city council and have your property taken through Imminent Domain for even less than the original offer.

The developer can then make money off what was once your property.

"Take from the poor man that which is his and give it to a rich man so that he can become richer." (it's mine)

This single ruling alters the concept of private property and imminent domain as they have existed in English/American jurisprudence for nearly 1000 years.

The Supreme Court ignored a key clause of the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use," (Nowhere does the Constitution even imply that private property may be forcebly taken from an individual and given to another for private use.)

This is the single worst case of judicial activism that I can think of.

Regardless of whether individual members of the court belong to the ideological right or left, it seems these nine clowns interpret the Consitution any way they see fit.

Not only do they ignore the founders' original intent at will, they also ignore those parts that are clearly and concisely written.

When they cannot find any language supporting their agenda, (such as this) they simply fall back on the idiotic concept of "evolving standards."

There is no accountability whatsoever. Clearly, the Supreme Court is out of control.

There is no check, no balance on this Court at all except their individual life-spans.

As our political masters have now become so terrified of amending the document, (*always shrilly screamed* "We can't tinker with the Constitution!!") even that now theoretical "check" is in effect neutralized.

So of course nothing will be done to amend the Constitution to "rein this court in" or clarify the concept of private property, or any on the other asinine rulings (Roe vs. Wade, for example) that the brethern (and now sistern) have imposed on all of us.

With this new and unusual interpretation of imminent domain, the founding fathers must certainly be spinning in their respective graves.

It's a shame.

Darren said...

Perhaps the thing to do now is to amend the California constitution such that this could never happen here.

Polski3 said...

Amending a State Constitution does not work. Federal dictates (such as this Supreme Court decision) and the US Constitution over power the State constitutions.

This decision is just SO wrong. EdWonk had a good preview of the future in his above comment: the rich will take from the poor to get richer. Or, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be king. And a King ain't satisified 'till he owns everything." This decision will create more "Rich" men.

Darren said...

It *would* work here because the feds only say that the states *can* take land, but the states and local governments obviously could not if doing so were specifically prohibited by the state constitution.

Leeroy Jenkins said...

Under this new law, can I turn Jerry Falwell's home into an abortion clinic?