June 23, 2005

I Used To Own A House

Forget flag burning. We need an amendment banning desecration of the Constitution.

Not satisfied with having seriously abridged our First Amendment protected right to free speech by sanctifying the speech restrictions of Campaign Finance Reform the Supreme Court in a split decision has targeted the Fifth Amendment. Specifically the language that reads “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

You and I no longer own homes. We occupy them. We pay the bank every month for the privilege of living there as long as the government wants to let us.

In the ruling handed down today, the court ruled that the town of New London, CT could exercise eminent domain and take homes and business from citizens and turn the land over to private developers to build a river-front hotel, a health club and offices.

The Court has ruled that “economic development” qualifies as a public use. Economic development for who? For the homeowner who has worked and paid the mortgage month after month? Or for the developer who gets property he couldn't get on the open market because the owners didn't want to sell their homes?

What is to stop a developer from telling the city that if they take your home and give it to them, they can increase its economic value to the city. Not your right to your property. You no longer have that.

As the Supreme Court continues to render the words of the Constitution meaningless, perhaps it getting to be time to take these words to heart again.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

More at
Michelle Malkin
Wizbang
Physics Geek
Vodka Pundut
Ranting Right Wing Howler
Yippee-Ki-Yay!
Limburg Letter
Mary Katherine Ham
Professor Bainbridge
Captain's Quarters
Blogs of War
Ramblings Journal
Florida Cracker
Pejmanesque
Instapundit
Arguing With Sign Posts
Nashville Files
No Quarters
Unpartisan
The Right Report
Say Uncle
Accidental Verbosity
SCOTUS Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
John Tabin
The Open End
Secure Liberty
Right Wing News
Myopic Thoughts
Mean Mr. Mustard
Narcissistic Views
Glen Reynolds
Stones Cry Out
Transterrestial Musings
The Indepundit
CaerdroiaRandom Numbers
Darleen's Place
Angry in the Great White North
Another Rovian Conspiracy
Nobody Asked Me, But
Macsmind
TacJammer
RussBlog
Brain Fertilizer
Right Side of the Rainbow
Miss O'Hara
The Age Of Reason
Ramblings' Journal
Rhymes with Right
Lileks - Deadburb USA
Powerline 1
Powerline 2
Michelle Malkin

I'm going to stop adding names to this list and just send you off the Kelo Topic Page at Truth Laid Bear. He's got a very big list of blogs writing on this topic, even though he seems to have missed this one!

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 09:10 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment


1 People forget that we used to have something called allodial title in this country. That meant that you owned your property outright and nobody could take it from you.

In the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary war, the American people were given their lands in "Allodial Title". What this means is that we then owned all the property in this country free and clear.

Allodial - "Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal."

What these means to the average American is that, at some point, our government has returned us to the feudal system of land ownership. Now we "owe" an obligation to our government to pay taxes on the property that we "should" own in allodial title. Not only is this land, but also every possession we have including our houses, our cars and everything else we think we own.

With all of the talk of "reducing the deficit", why don't we consider doing what our forefathers once proposed?

Hence, if you pay taxes on something, you really don't own it. The taxes paid are for the privilege of occupying or using it.

When the masses wake up to this, the Banksters and their Congress Critters had better run for the hills.

Posted by: Wally Q at June 23, 2005 09:45 AM (D7DRM)

2 Holy krap. Just got home from work and read this. Holy krap. I really didn't see how the town of New London had a case here. Holy krap. There goes the neighborhood; here comes another Walmart. Forcing you to sell your home to a developer to build a hotel and office space "qualifies as public use"? Holy krap. 5-4 decision? I presume it's the usual suspects.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 23, 2005 05:13 PM (eEGUY)

3 And another thing. What the hell does NOT qualify as "public use" now? I mean, if the gubmint can force you to sell to another private owner than there isn't any limit left to emminent domain. None!

"Excuse me, Mister Macklin. Leonardo DiCaprio wants to move to town, but he'll only do it if he can live in your house. Y'see, he loves what you've done with the new additions and we'd really really like to say that we're the hometown of Leonardo DiCaprio -- it could be an economic boon. Be out by the 31st, 'kay?"

Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 23, 2005 05:22 PM (eEGUY)

4 As you well know - we live in an area where McMansions spring up faster than weeds. There is nothing to prevent the town from taking my entire neighborhood of renovated 1950's capes and handing it over to some developer to bulldoze and re-subdivide into McMansion lots. Hey it's better tax revenue!

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 23, 2005 05:27 PM (ics4u)

5 And what's even sadder is that an insult to this injury is coming. Don't expect that those being forced to sell their homes to a developer will be paid "just compensation". No-o-o-o. The land may be worth millions to the new "buyer" but, I'll bet ya dollars to doughnuts that the old "sellers" will be paid market value for their homes as they stand right now.

And congrats on being blogrolled by the Emperor!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 23, 2005 06:20 PM (eEGUY)

6 Actually by definition they are getting less than current market value. If you assume that there is a dollar value at which they would sell without government coercion, that represents the market price. Obviously the developer isn't willing to pay that or they wouldn't have gotten their pals in the govt to intervene.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 23, 2005 06:44 PM (ics4u)

7 We don't need a hanging, nor a revolution. What we need is a simple constitutional amendment to reverse the "Boss Hogg Decision" as someone nicknamed it over on Free Republic.

Resolved: no government, agency, district, or authority, nor any such entity created under the authority of same, whether public or private, shall have the authority to compel any owner of a property, whether real or virtual, movable or not, to sell same to any other entity, whether public or private, by use of any application or form of law, duress, coercement, or mandate.
-------------------------------------------------
Just how much danger we are in is illustrated by an article I wrote a year ago:
Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones In Texas
The Girl Scouts of America meet up with a shadowy quasi-governmental organization....

If the html doesn't work the url is:
http://www.houblog.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21

Posted by: ubu at June 23, 2005 07:14 PM (makk8)

8 Newsflash - Developers Use Eminent Domain to Acquire White House

http://armedvictim.blogspot.com/

Posted by: j. blair at June 23, 2005 07:15 PM (B54dL)

9 "Forget flag burning. We need an amendment banning desecration of the Constitution."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

BTW, thanks for the link.

Posted by: Russell Newquist at June 24, 2005 07:45 AM (lUNFP)

10 "We pay the bank every month for the privilege of living there as long as the government wants to let us."

No, you pay the bank every month under a contract that says the bank won't evict you if you keep paying on the loan until it is paid off. You pay property taxes every six months for the privilege of living there.

And now the government can throw you off even if you've payed on the legal contract terms of the bank, and the theft-at-gunpoint terms of your property taxation, as long as someone can convince your local government that they can put something on your property that will provide more tax income than your property taxes do.

You don't own your property, and never have. But the terms of the rental contract just changed, and you had no say in it.

Posted by: Kevin Baker at June 27, 2005 09:34 AM (BiMLC)

11 I find the United States Supreme Court totally out of line in their INTERPRETATION of PUBLIC USE. Since when does public mean private? I think the Justices that voted yes need to be impeached, and to go back to grammar school. They are not worth their salaries the tax payers have to pay.
The Supreme Court has no right to change the law. Their job is to interpret the law, not change it. I just looked up Public in the dictionary.
Public(of,belonging to,or concerning the people as a whole.)
Private (not for the public.)
I also feel that as long as I have to pay real estate taxes on my property, that it is not public property.What has just happened in the United States of America, to a persons home is their Castle?

Posted by: Robert Ziak at June 28, 2005 11:30 AM (ZCnB7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment






37kb generated in 0.0841 seconds; 40 queries returned 188 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.