Folks, they have finally done it. The following WSJ article shows how The Supreme Court has eliminated your rights as a land owner. They have decided that city government can now determine what is the best use for your land. Just because you own deed and title, pay taxes, and have built something for generations to pass on to your heirs, doesn't mean a thing. Now, government can simply pay you what THEY say is fair value for your dream and send you packing. Therefore, if Donald Trump bribes your city officials into putting a casino in your neighborhood, your home and all your neighbor's homes will legally be bull-dozed and a casino that provides more revenue and more jobs will be erected instead. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America. This will end those petty lawsuits regarding whether or not Walmart, K-Mart, or Target have a right to build where your city park was planned. Be sure to re-elect all those politicians who have made this possible. Be sure to reward all those who have helped to shred our once-important constitution. Thanks to them, we have pared our bill of rights down to a more manageable size.
(Dale's Notes)This news will further embolden, if such is possible, the already incredibly arrogant city governments of Utah. This country is rapidly morphing into some kind of tinny, Orwellian stage-play. Government is tripping over itself in an effort to rake-in all of the powers left lying about and unclaimed by a citizenry that is so stupid and pacified that even the highest hopes of the bureaucrats are now far exceeded.
Here it is, Supreme Court sanction for one of the worst phenomenon of present- day America: property condemnation -- zoning rule tyranny -- flouting of the 4th Amendment. The fox runs the hen house. And, its not so much a conspiracy as it is the rise of a privileged and empowered class which recognizes, perhaps subliminally, that the act of upholding an arrogation of power by one branch of the family inherently indemnifies the other's unlawful influence.
Utah in particular, it seems to me, is a very dangerous place, where a random contact with one of these people (police/judges/bureaucrats) can incur more severe penalties than anywhere else -- in the U.S. -- that I know of.
But, anyone can see that the problem is also pandemic. Where in contemporary America can one not find a ready supply of compliant soccer moms? Where is there not a politically potent majority of urbanized, group-grope, 'what's best for everybody', state-minded, "responsible" people? This is the medium without which the now hyper-mutating organism of government could not have arisen.
The blatant us-against-them hostility which we have all experienced at the hands of all levels of government is the true, unveiled nature of maternalism co-mingled with coercive power. Despite all of the warnings and foretelling talk, I guess that I never thought that I would actually live to see the day when the bureaucrats coalesced into such an exquisitely uniform front of open hostility towards the unconnected, toward the non-government-employed citizen -- nationwide.
Its time for savvy folks to flee Utah. And personally, if I had the capital to do so, I would leave the U.S., not wishing to be a first hand witness, and possible victim, of the final permutation this country must now assume. -D.W.
Read and leave comments - http://freewest.blogspot.com/2005/06/supreme-court-nullifies-4th-amendment_23.html
The Wall Street Journal
June 23, 2005 11:28 a.m. EDT
WORLD NEWS
High Court Rules Governments Can Seize Land for Private Use
Associated Press June 23, 2005 11:28 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.
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.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home in New London, Conn., even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
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" and if "just compensation" is provided.
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 shouldn't 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," Justice 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. (Kelo et al v. City of New London)
Michigan Ruling
In other court action Thursday, justices struck down a Michigan law that barred state-paid legal help for poor defendants who plead guilty but then want to appeal.
The one-of-a-kind law had been challenged by Antonio Dwayne Halbert, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to two child-molestation charges and received up to 30 years in prison. He wanted a state-appointed lawyer to help him contest the way his sentence was calculated.
But Michigan's 1994 law, designed to clear a backlog of thousands of cases, barred automatic appeals for defendants who plead guilty or no contest. There are some exceptions, including if a prosecutor seeks an appeal. Those defendants may ask the Michigan Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, but that request is seldom granted.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Mr. Halbert had a right to an attorney. "Navigating the appellate process without a lawyer's assistance is a perilous endeavor for a layperson, and well beyond the competence of individuals, like Halbert, who have little education, learning disabilities, and mental impairments," she wrote.
Had justices upheld the law, other states likely would have copied it as a way of cutting back appeals and unclogging courts. Seventeen states filed arguments supporting Michigan. Opponents argued that the law discriminates against the poor.
Justice John Paul Stevens, during arguments in the case, had said that defendants aren't always represented at trial by able attorneys. "If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Justice Stevens said.
The 17 states supporting Michigan were: Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. The case is Halbert v. Michigan.
Copyright © 2005 Associated Press URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111953671238667630,00.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111642390345836898,00.html Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.
