Supreme Court rules that no one owns their home
Private property rights are the foundation of freedom. Now developers can pay off your local politicians and then come in and steal your property without even giving you best use price. Imagine middle class neighborhoods across America being bulldozed because developers have written up a proposal for making more money off of your property. Either it's your property or it isn't.
The United States is simply going back to feudalism. In medieval England, before the Magna Carta, in 1214 the local lord would decide what you could and could not do with the King's property.
This ruling overturns 800 years of common law and common sense. It butchers the Bill of Rights. To put it frankly, it's gone.
So many Americans are asking why the Justices would make such a decision, overtly, 180 degrees away from freedom. That's the point. It's in your face.
The big police state dog is off the porch, and they think there is nothing you can do about it.
The all-powerful Imperial State has thrown down the gauntlet. They have slapped the American people upside the head and brutally raped us, and we have put up with it. So, now they're placing what's left of American freedom on a spit so they can roast and eat us.
The founding fathers said over and over again that the level of tyranny under which we will live is the exact amount that we will accept. A group of hard-core criminals has gained control of our society. They could care less about the future of this country or the general public's welfare. What we are witnessing is a mad gold rush of corrupt politicians and corporations strip-mining western society.
We are being looted and sacked like ancient Rome by a herd of blood-thirsty barbarians.
The only difference is the barbarians of today have high-tech public relation firms and cable news channels launching their psychological warfare barrages: "lie down, lie down, don't resist Government loves you. Give up liberty for security..Tasering 82-Year-old Alzheimer patients is good. Mercury in vaccines is nutritious. Open borders means safety. Submit to us. Trust us. We don't lie...."
The fact is, just because the Supreme Court says we don't have any property rights doesn't mean it's true. A previous court ruled that black Americans were not human beings and thus had no rights. Would you follow a similar decree today?
Despots know the power of setting precidents. That's why they've been bragging about their unprecedented ruling. I for one am glad that the mask is beginning to slide from the demon's face. They've been land-grabbing for a long time. Now it's just going to be more overt.
So let it come, and let everybody know what you are: a pack of wolves, a pack of criminals, a pack of liars, and a pack of scum.
- Alex Jones
Cities may seize homes for economic development, court rules
Associated Press | June 23, 2005
By Hope Yen
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use.''
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.