| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
What kind of madness is this?
WASHINGTON (AP)——The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses—even against their will—for private economic development.
Why should this Court increase the power of the state to seize the property of the people?
This is what’s wrong with the Supreme Court changing the laws of this land in the guise of aggressive interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court sucks at making laws. This decision is a monstrosity. With this decision the Supreme Court is encouraging the very animosity it has been designed to resolve.
It’s not unreasonable to view this as a power grab by the Supreme Court itself, as it will inevitably create conflicts which the court system will then be able to rule on.
The Supreme Court is abusing its authority so as to increase its own dominance of American life.
We’re going to have to do some thinking about how to get the Supreme Court back on track.
#1
Why are the words "public use" in state constitutions, was this a self imposed limitation created by the state legislators as they were acting within their corporate capacity, or was this a precaution from possible government abuse that was resolved upon the will of the people. Dose "KELO" override all state constitutions, and if so, how has this been accomplished.
Can all state constitutional amendments in property be misinterpreted, and who has been given this right to misinterpret the words of the people. Were the state constitutional amendments submitted to the federal supreme court, when they were thought to have been ratified by the people, and where was this supreme court when the people had to decide this issue, is it not the right of the people to confirm what they have said.
Are state constitutions the constitutions of the state legislators, or of the people in that state, and are the people equal in their holdings of amendments, or unequal, or are they now simply the only beholders of a nonexistent claim.
Do states that have strong constitutional property amendments, really need to have legislative bills proposed to protect what is demanded, has this right to our own property now become to adventurous a thing for the people to have claimed, over government, and if this is not reasoned by the people, to be the very case, why has this not been pointed out by our state legislators, would not this absence of true representation, be in violation of their oath of office to protect the words of their people and those meanings held within their state constitutions, if there are proposals that are to claim this to be otherwise.
If legislation in the states is now to be, the only protection of the people, in their properties, dose this not admit to the meaningless words of the people, and dose this not now divest and devoice the people from what they had to say and from the affects of what they had demanded.
Are these actions, in state legislative protections designed to cause the people to forget that they had demanded their own protections from that very state or federal government that has now stepped up to protect them from the oppressive actions, only they themselves can commit.
Are the people of the states, now only to depend upon what has proven so often to be the unreliable currents of legislation.
Have any state constitutional property amendments been changed since KELO, and if so, who made these changes, was it done by the people of that state, in conventions, or by the peoples majority vote, or was this done upon the acts of the state legislators alone, and dose now, the successful ratification of a proposed amendment, overreach the understandings of the people, or override the very cause that they had to vote, upon that amendment.
Are state legislation’s, in property, a double protection for what the people had said in their state constitutions can not be violated, or are they in actuality, statements, that what the people had said can be violated, but what we the legislators now say, can not be, and what if the state supreme judiciary was to claim this will not be so, and if they do, from what powers of authority do those state judges now speak, do they now look to our state legislators constitutions for their powers, or to their own grants of power, or do they now look upon the powerful grants supplied in the KELO, by their foreign fathers, the United States Supreme court, which has proven to be no less inclined to a federal empire then they are to themselves, wielding that power, that has now proven to be so unconnected to the words of a united people, to now override what these state legislators have said. Now that what the people have said has become so insignificant. Are now the people in one state of our nation to be held as if they are free in their properties, while in another they are to be held as if slaves from their rights to properties.
How is it to be now, you segregated sheep, that your freedoms from oppression remain so self evident, upon such a divided nation as this, as you are now to allow others, upon their pleasures, to refine.