Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Court Gets it Wrong Again!

The Supreme Court members have sworn to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America.

In our great Republic we have enjoyed more freedom than any other nation in history. Let us examine why.

There are two main reasons why we have a Republic instead of a Democracy.

First, is the Constitution, and second is the Bill of Rights.

Under a Democracy, the majority can impose its will upon the minority without any restrictions. In a Democracy, if the majority of the people wanted to run a certain group out of the country, all it would take would be 51% and they would have to leave.

Under a Republic, the Rights of the Minority are spelled out in a document, such that the majority cannot disregard their rights. Everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away. This is the basis of freedom.

So, how do we define Freedom? Freedom has been simply defined as…”My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” In other words, as long as I don’t infringe upon someone else’s rights, I should be able to do what ever I wanted.

We develop laws to help us understand how our actions may infringe upon someone else’s rights. If someone takes something that belongs to someone else, then they have infringed upon the other persons rights.

Where we loose focus is when an Organization takes something that belongs to someone else. For instance if the government takes something, (property/money), from someone that doesn't belong to them! Not only the lost freedom aspect of the act, but the morality of the act is lost or obscured. For instance, if the government says, "We think you should give of your property to the poor, but since we don't think you will, we will take it from you and give it to the poor instead." This is lost freedom of control of our property. (And morally wrong!)

But let’s examine a more detailed view of our Freedom.

There are four possessions that we must have in order to be truly free. They are:

1. Life, with adequate amounts of physical and mental health and strength.
2. Absence of the restraint or coercion of others, except when their freedoms, or four possessions, are infringed upon by me.
3. Knowledge of Laws and the enticement of others to understand them.
4. The right and control of property.

There are those who would make this 4th possession much harder to understand. Life depends upon access to food, clothing, and shelter, and unless we are able to acquire these items of property, our very existence is in jeopardy.

As we grow independent from our parents, we learn that we can take raw materials and energy and thru the efforts of our body and mind, we can produce items that others want and will give us some of their property in return. Once we have gained this property, or money, we can then be really independent. However, if we cannot do with our property as we wish, we no longer are truly free. “A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” (Federalist #79)

Property becomes the means to one’s goals. Freedom could be defined as the power and opportunity to achieve our goals.

Thru synergy we can combine our free use of property with others free use of their property and accomplish things that are beyond our own limited abilities.

But, if we cannot do with our property as we wish, we will be limited in our freedom to accomplish even the smallest goals.

“Control” of property thus becomes a key component that is usually lost in the governments methods of espousing the “greater good” of society as the reason they will “take”, (steal), our property, or will limit our ability to sell, or otherwise use it as we see fit, as long as we don’t infringe upon others rights.

This claim that the State Government can “take” someone’s property and give or sell it to a giant pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Corp, even if it is for the "greater good" is taking away freedom. Fox News


At 11:21 AM, Blogger fetching jen said...

This is a terrifying decision and one that flies directly in the face of the Constitution.

from World Net Daily: Clarence Thomas' addition to O'Conner's dissent: "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."

California state Sen. Tom McClintock, who ran for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the Supreme Court "broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans' most fundamental rights."

"Their decision nullifies the Constitution's Public Use Clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain," he said. "The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens."

McClintock announced he plans to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights.

"This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property," he said. "In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceases to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action."

At 4:05 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

It is all about revenue for the government seizeing the property.

Imagine if they wake up and decide all of those churches that own land and are non-profit and therefore legally pay no taxes, that they could condem the land and churches and allow big developers in to then have tax revenue land in it's place!

The Supreme Court has opened the flood gates!


Post a Comment

<< Home