You don't own it

| | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1)

Excellent post by Mary Katherine Ham on's C-Log on the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday in Kelo v. New London:

I own a 2-bedroom, 1,500 sq-ft house.

No you don't. Because someone wants to put a 5-bedroom, 4,000 sq-ft house on your lot. It will bring in more property taxes.

I own a 5-bedroom, 4,000 sq-ft house.

No you don't. Because a local BBQ-purveyor wants to turn your lot into a restaurant, which will turn a profit and produce more taxes than your home.

And so on up the chain.

Maybe we could get a "My Home is My Castle" Amendment going? Are you allowed to amend the Constitution to say what it already said?

That's the problem. When we propose countering an overreaching judiciary by passing new laws and constitutional amendments, what's to say those judges won't just ignore the new laws or deconstruct them into oblivion? I'd say impeach justices that ignore the Constitution, but I'm not sure they wouldn't rule the impeachment unconstitutional.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: You don't own it.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

» SCOTUS destroys concept of private property from Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis)

From the Washington Times: The Supreme Court yesterday said cities can seize people's homes or businesses to make way for... Read More


W. said:

So how do you determine whether they're ignoring the Constitution? What would be the criteria? Do you have a Bates Doctrine on which to base this?

Remember, justices' rulings are *opinions.* They do the best they can to *interpret* the Constitution. These interpretations and laws have a tendency to change over time -- and do. You don't want to still have blacks count as three-fifths of a person, do you?

Impeaching justices isn't a good idea. That's why they're appointed for life. So they can make rulings and not be as swayed by the whims of politics.

Dan Paden said:

It's sad to have this confirmation that in the gub'mint's eyes, our only purpose is to generate taxes. How we are supposed to generate taxes when everything we own and everything we do is subject to governmental approval is beyond me.

mad okie Author Profile Page said:

You didnt own it before this ruling, you are just leasing it. You pay the gov't property taxes. if you dont pay your "rent", they will take your home...

Anon said:

I'm going to have to read the entire opinion because I simply cannot fathom 5 of the biggest minds in our country interpreting this the way they did. It seems contrary to everything I ever believed about America.

Quite literally, now, all a developer has to do is decide he likes your property and the game's over.

So much for 'homeland security'. Doesn't seem to matter much any more.

It also does that without _any_ potential abuse which _may_ be fostered by this capability. PO an elected official (or his developer buddy) and you could soon find yourself homeless.

And, we all know there's people around here who would have no misgivings at all in doing so.

theotherguy said:

Hey, the same thing is fixin' to happen in Sand Springs courtesy of Vision 2025. And nobody is even complaining. Dozens of homes, 3 churches, 1 school and several businesses. Buldozed for a BIG BOX store.

Lee Scott said:

As CEO of Wal-Mart, may I just say that you're all overreacting to this and should the time come when it is necessary, I will be there, holding your hand, as our associates bulldoze your homes to make way for a new Supercenter.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on June 24, 2005 12:28 AM.

Security through obscurity was the previous entry in this blog.

Council unanimously approves ethics ordinance is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]