Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes
  • Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:47:52 EDT



> And there you have it. Local control by local citizens. Bravo. How much
> control do those local citizens have over DC politicos and bureaucrats?
>
>
>

But there are certain rights that as a constitutional republic we should not
have to defend mano-a-mano in every instance. If the local gendarmes decide
to invade your house to conduct an unconstitutional search, should you have
to
keep a shooting iron on your hip at all times to defend against it? Should
you have to go to the local magistrates or initiate a local ballot measure
just
to keep the police out of your house? No. Those who violate that
constitutional guarantee to privacy should have the crushing weight of the
entire
federal government on them and not just be subject to no being voted for.

It's the same with property rights. Being secure in our property isn't
something we are supposed to have to defend in hand to hand combat every time
someone decides they have superior forces marshalled against ours. If
someone
violates that guaranteed constitutional right, the consequences ought to be
grim
for them.

As far as local government having sovereignty over real property (that's why
it's called 'real' which is a loan word from Spanish meaning "royal" as in
"El
Camino Real" = "The Royal Road"), while it is true that we are secure in our
porperty so long as we pay taxes on it and obey all the easements,
restrictions, etc. A court case in Tennessee established that what a person
actually
owns is the "unrestricted uses" of a property and not necessarily the
property
itself in any tangible way, while all that is true .... it is the same with
all
our other constitutional rights. You have the right to to privacy in your
home only until there is probable cause that you have committed a crime, then
that privacy can be breeched. In fact it doesn't have to be YOU who
committed
the crime so long as you home might harbor evidence of a crime. You only
have
freedom of religion so long as you are not using that religion to deprive
others of the same freedom. Etc. All our freedoms are within limits, no
other
way it could be.

Kelo vs New London crossed a line. It is right the local governments should
have eminent domain over property, anything else is not a workable system.
THAT should be decided locally and is. But when greed and bribery and graft
can
be used to relieve one person of property to give it to another person, as in
the Kelo case, a line has been crossed and no local government should have
the prerogative to cross that line any more than they should have the
authority
to decide what is 'probable cause' in invade your home.

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page