We may as well burn that sucker since it doesn't mean anything any more. Y'know that when the president is sworn in he promises to defend and protect the Constitution? I think the senators and congress critters take a similar oath. Same with the Supreme Court. Impeach 'em all since they are all in violation of their oaths of office. Bastards!
I've let all the other sites weigh in on Kelo v. New London, since they are all smarter and better writers than I am. I just believe in common sense.
Some people say we need a constitutional amendment about this bullshit. Nope. We already have one. It's called the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Exactly what part of "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" is unclear to you? The Supreme Court has just ruled that "public use" means what the gummint says it does. Well, friends and neighbors, let me tell you that one of the tenets of socialism is that GUMMINT CONTROLS PROPERTY!
As an aside here, whenever I want to find direct quotes from the Constitution, I run right over to Connie du Toit's site since she has posted the entire Constitution. Hooray! She's started blogging again. I see that I'm on the list that she reads regularly but not every day. I gotta do sumpin' about that. Every day Connie! Except Saturdays when I post the Saturday Boobage.
Let's see, we have an energy crises in this country. Here's a partial solution. Let's attach a turbine to the corpse of James Madison. That sorry Founder is spinning in his grave so fast that he ought be good for a few kilowatts.
Eminent domain is really only supposed to apply to gummint stuff like roads and bridges. That's what "public use" is supposed to mean. It does not mean that you can take a house on some primo property, tear it down and put up some condos in its place to enhance the property tax revenue. That's what the liberals on the Supreme Court just decided. Remember they're liberals and they believe in gummint. Ironic that the people who are "out for the little guy" side with gummint and big business to fuck the little guy, and this was in Connecticutt, a blue state. Tell me again. Who is for the little guy?
Geez! Why should we be pissed off? we've only been observing this bullshit for the last 50 years AND HAVE DONE NOTHING!
Wow! If you're a liberal you can look in the Constitution and find abortion on demand. You can even find the part that says you can take a viable baby and deliver just enough of him to suck the brains out. All you have to do is keep part of the poor little fetus in the birth canal. Then you can perform infanticide. It's perfectly legal. It's in the Constitution. The Supreme Court said so.
What about the Second Amendment?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That doesn't mean the people shouldn't be allowed to have AK-47's. I got news for all you fucking liberals. I don't own guns to hunt. I own guns to protect myself. I don't wanna blast Bambi with an AK-47. I wanna blow away some asshole like Brian Nichols who the Fulton County Sheriff's Office, in its incompetence, allowed to escape. If Brian Nichols showed up at my front door, I wouldn't want to read to him like Ashley did. I would want to blow his ass away and I would.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That brings me to McCain-Feingold, a piece of shit legislation that the only people who gave a flying fuck about were the Lamestream Media and politicians like that RINO piece of shit, John McCain. Those black robed assholes didn't declare this piece of shit unconstitutional. The ones who didn't should have been impeached immediately. Look, there is absolutely no way to take money out of politics. Anyone who thinks that you can, please e-mail me. I know some people in Nigeria who want to share some money with you. All you have to do is help them get it out of the country. Send me the account number and the routing code of your checking account and I'll work with the Nigerians and put a shitload of money in it.
The only campaign finance law I wanna see is full disclosure. I wanna see who's buying our politicians and how much they're paying for them. We got the best politicians that money can buy. I wanna see what they cost.
How should the toilet paper be put on the roll? Should it be over the top or rolled under? Since our three brances of gummint have pretty much decided to wipe their asses with the Constitution (and we're letting the dickheads do it) we need to decide how it should be put on the roll.
We're losing the country and we're doing nothing.
Update: Charlieb sent me this.
Posted by denny at June 27, 2005 08:56 PM
Too bad that you and I seem to be the only ones who realize that, Denny. Fuck the supremes!! The constitution doesn't need to be interpreted, it just needs to be fucking read!! It ain't that complicated!
Posted by: Alan on June 27, 2005 10:44 PMNah, with me, makes three. It's not f'ing rocket science. I've got two words for you:
Tar, Feathers.
I was wrong. Three. Add the word: Firearms. We need a coalition to condemn the SCOTUS' personal houses and property. Kick 'em off and make a rifle range and gun store. That would be more "Productive" for taxes ect. A bit of their own medicine to lose THEIR PROPERTY. Betcha they'd change their minds.
Andy
Alan, I hope you're wrong. Anyone with the brains of a retarded pissant knows we've gone from the quiet kitten-feet of having our Constitution spirited away to having it turned into asswipes. Been watching for most of my years, the once magnificent document has been nibbled into the type of stuff you see lining a rat's nest. Right off hand I'd venture to say it's time to do a Control/Alt/Delete on our judicial system. Bunch of Bolshevics. I'd say more but I'm not really into a Homeland Severity bust-in by the jackbooted, body-armored thugs with Macs. They'd probably kill little Rima and old toofless Cookie (my dawgs) as they live here too.
Posted by: Michael Bauer on June 27, 2005 11:31 PMThe supreme injustices of the court have spoken. Our constitution is a living mocument that must reflect the values of society today. If thats so, why have it at all?
But allas, the courts are not the ones at fault. We need to place blame where blame is due, with congress. They have a job to do, and when they failed to do their job, the courts took over the country. Write your congressidiot and tell them what you think. If enough people do, maybe they will sit up and take notice.
I find myself in complete agreement w/ Denny (and Jeremy, Alan, Andy & Michael) on this one!
Posted by: Dan S. on June 28, 2005 01:57 AMI've been sitting here waiting for GOC to post this topic. I am in complete agreement. I can't say it any better than he can. I don't know how to fight back anymore. The legal system has shut the people out completely. The only place left to fight for our country is...in the streets. Is it really going to come to that? The majority of this country has no understanding as to what has been happening at the Supreme Court. I don't know what else to say except may God help us all.
Posted by: Paul on June 28, 2005 02:30 AMOne thing about our government, it does meet the requirement of three equal branches. All three are equally Socialist now. So much for the long awaited dream of Republican controlled White House and Congress and a conservative leaning Supreme Court.
To feel my vote means something I think I will just vote Libertarian. That way I will never have my candidate win, then disappoint me.
Did we change high courts with another country without me knowing it. This SCOTUS is not American. It must be on loan from Cuba or Zimbabwe.
Damn I'm frustrated!
Hey Tom, I can't remember which recent Supreme Court case it was, but one Justice cited international law as justification or insight for one of the rulings. So, yeah, I guess we did change high courts with another country. Which case was that, anybody?
Posted by: Paul on June 28, 2005 07:55 AMIt's interesting how you interpret "public use" quite literally, but are willing to interpret "freedom of speech" a bit more loosely.
It is not possible to rely on a document of such brevity without some interpretation of what it means.
Respectfully yours,
Posted by: Erik on June 28, 2005 09:18 AM"If Brian Nichols showed up at my front door, I wouldn't want to read to him like Ashley did. I would want to blow his ass away and I would."
Damn shame he knocked on the wrong door. Do we really need months of trial followed by years of BS appeals to determine this turds fate?
Posted by: LargeBill on June 28, 2005 09:55 AMPaul:
Roper v. Simmons. The United States Supreme Court invoked international concerns in ruling that execution of a person under the age of 18 is unconstitutional.
Jerks. Utter Jerks. If they can't uphold the United States' sovereign powers, they should be impeached.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
Elizabeth & Paul:
In addition to Roper, the court relied on "international legal trends" also in striking down execution of "mentally retarded" convicts. Atkins v. Virginia
But this wasn't the fisrt time either. Several members of the court have made no secret of relying on the laws of other nations in their interpretation of our constitution.
And we wonder why people are losing faith in the rule of law when the USSC justices don't even have show much respect for it.
Posted by: daniel on June 28, 2005 12:32 PMI'm well aware of Atkins v. Virginia. Now that it's unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person, wonder of wonders, now they're all claiming they're mentally retarded.
I know you're as shocked as I was.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
/do I really need to?
Posted by: Elizabeth on June 28, 2005 01:21 PMErik - You said "It's interesting how you interpret "public use" quite literally, but are willing to interpret "freedom of speech" a bit more loosely." How is my interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" not literal? McCain-Feingold and all the other bullshit campaign finance laws are unconstitutional by a literal interpretation of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was written by the Founders to limit the power of gummint.
Posted by: Denny on June 28, 2005 01:23 PMMy observation was based on the fact that you interpreted the word "speech" to include the making of campaign contributions. The Constitution does not state anything about freedom to make unlimited political contributions, only freedom of "speech." Therefore, it was necessary for you to read into what "speech" means, far more than one would have to read into what "public use" means. Quite literally, speech would only include the expression of words or language.
I agree with your assessment of the recent SC ruling, but it is unfair and unrealistic for a judge to be limited to the literal words of a constitution or statute, as it is inherent in a judge's duties to interpret the law.
Respectfully yours,
Posted by: Erik on June 28, 2005 01:32 PMErik, interpretation and common sense should go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately, the latter has left the building in Washington, DC.
Posted by: Paul on June 28, 2005 01:49 PMThe Bill of Rights is not called the The Bill of Cant's or The Bill of Thou Shalt Not's because, as Denny mentioned above, it was designed to limit what GOV'T can/can't do .... not the individual citizen.
Posted by: Dan S. on June 28, 2005 02:06 PMMichelle Malkin posted this link:
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Read it - it'll cheer you up just a bit. Someone HAS decided to claim Eminent Domain on Supreme Court Injustice Souter.....
Posted by: suzeisnotfooledbyislam on June 28, 2005 04:59 PMHOw about this one?
*restraining-order case* "The majority justices said a domestic restraining order does not create a 'property interest' in prompt police enforcement of the order."
Woman gets restraining order. Man takes kids. Woman asks cops to find man. Cops refuse. Man kills three kids, then attacks police station. Woman sues.
OK, the restraining order allowed for one weekly "dinner visit" with the kids (but apparently not for removing them). Still, the Court's ruling is that a restraining order is not a contract and is totally meaningless - "not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion."
The problem is with Americans willing to rollover and take it up the heiny. The citizens have the authority to impeach those officials we deem to be inappropriately performing their jobs. The problem is that congress will not impeach themselves. In order for a change to be implemented in this nation, the playing field has to be level. It's not. A senators term in office should be limited just as the presidents is limited. A Supreme Court Justice should also have a limited Term length. Too often people get in place and people start to comfort vote. as long as the asshole doesn't do anything too drastic outside the bounds they can pretty much be assured of another Term.
Education, and a fresh political body are severely lacking in this nation...
I love what this Nation was created for and what it was meant to represent, but I hate ALL the assholes in power, Dems and Reps alike for ruining it.
You pose the question, "who is for the little guy?"
None of them are, I say, not one. They are all overpaid lying hypocrites out for their own personal interest. Indeed, impeach them all, from the President down to the chick who gets the youngest freshman congresswoman her coffee. All of them. Now.
Posted by: Jim on June 29, 2005 09:30 AM