|
On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to our Constitution, ruling in a 5-4 decision that Americans only have
a right to keep their homes, businesses, and houses of worship until
their government decides a new owner would generate more tax revenue.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out in her dissent, the
majority's ruling in Kelo v. New London means that "[t]he
specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent
the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with
a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
The public's reaction to the Kelo decision was immediate and impassioned, making the case one of the most reviled Supreme Court opinions in recent history. Citizens throughout the
nation demanded that their state governments act to make sure their
property rights were secure. As a result, 42 states passed at least one
bill in response to Kelo, although some bills (such as the eminent domain "reform" passed in my current home state of Missouri) were far less effective than others.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court marked this anniversary by announcing today that it will not consider a case that might have given them the chance to scale back some of the damage done by Kelo. Suzette Kelo, on the other hand, is helping to spearhead the continuing effort to see property rights protected in this country, and she was present for the grand reopening of the little pink house that was at the center of the controversy. It
has been relocated to another part of the city, where it will stand as
a monument to the struggle that she and her neighbors shared with
hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens who are threatened with
eminent domain. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, three years after New
London won its case by persuading five justices that the displacement
of these tax-paying property owners was necessary to complete the
city's revitalization, the "redevelopment site" remains a wasteland.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 23 June 2008 13:38 )
|
|
|
Terrorism, Guantanamo, and Boumediene v. Bush
by M. Harrison
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the writ of habeas corpus applied to Guantanamo Bay detainees. The case was the first extension of habeas corpus - a legal tool to challenge the legality of one's imprisonment or detention - to aliens detained on foreign soil.
The decision was 5-4, and it quite riled the dissenting justices. Demonstrating their typical originalist belief that ancient legal doctrines can never adapt to new circumstances, both Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts filed cantankerous dissenting opinions.
Both justices felt the foreign extension of the writ of habeas was unnecessary because a) it never had been done before and b) Congress, in its infinite wisdom, enacted the Detainee Treatment Act that was supposed to do the same thing for those unfortunate souls in Gitmo.
Even though the Detainee Treatment Act explicitly denied the application of habeas to Gitmo detainees, the dissenters thought it was good enough because it provided perfunctory oversight procedures as a putative substitute. According to Justice Roberts, since Congress is elected by people, Congress tried to give some review to Gitmo proceedings, and Congress passed the DTA with the noble intentions of keeping America safe, any judicial interference with the DTA is really the denial of the will of the people. It was a nice try for political theatre, but ill-reasoned as a matter of Constitutional law.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 12 June 2008 23:40 )
|
|
Thoughts on Tort Reform By Will Helvestine While driving on an Arizona highway in August of 1976, Flora Garcia and her family were forcefully run off the road by a vengeful trucker. Earlier that day, the Garcias had passed the trucker, John Truesdell, who responded by making disparaging remarks over his citizen"s band radio. Further down the road, after the Garcias stopped for gas, they again passed Truesdell. This time he accelerated and followed the family in angry pursuit. When the Garcias pulled into the slow lane to allow him to pass, Truesdell announced over the radio that he would “teach them a lesson they would never forget.” He then sideswiped their car, forcing them off the road and causing injuries. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 07 January 2008 09:47 )
|
|
Bar None
The absurdity of law licensing
By: Dave Roland
My wife knows that I must really love her because I agreed to move to her home state of Missouri with the full knowledge that I'd have to take that state's bar exam before I could legally practice law there. For anyone who's never had to take a bar exam, trust me when I say that the whole process is a nightmare. Just preparing all the materials necessary to gain approval to take the exam is a hassle, to say nothing of the strain of studying for the test itself. Across the nation, most states require you to graduate from an ABA-accredited school just to sit for the exam, and of all those law school graduates taking the tests, fewer than two of every three will pass any given administration.
More frustrating than the high failure rate of these exams is the fact that they are essentially futile.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 07 May 2008 09:52 )
|
|
The Fundamental Rights Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Proposal I
We the people, in order to affirm the universal American belief in human freedom, hereby further declare the inalienable and fundamental rights of all citizens; those rights inherent in a system of ordered liberty, deeply rooted in the conscience of the American people, and among the privileges and immunities enjoyed by all American citizens.
Section 1. The following rights shall not be infringed or violated in the United States:
i) The right to privacy, especially autonomy over one's home, body and mind for behavior, belief and expressions which are not restrictive of the liberties of other citizens
ii) The right to pursue a profession in any lawful trade or avocation, to enjoy the rewards of one's own industry, and to trade and contract freely, subject only to restrictions necessary for the general public welfare
Section 2. Every citizen shall have standing to challenge, in any court of law in the United States, any federal or state act, agency, law or statute believed to violate these rights.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 21 April 2008 10:17 )
|
|
The District of Columbia v. Heller
A watershed battle over the Second Amendment in America's captial
By Joe Holmes
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
The Bill of Rights clearly articulates rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United
States. Rights are largely a moral
concept – the concept that facilitates individuals living within a larger
society. The Bill of Rights
essentially gives legal meaning to the moral rights expected of a free
society. Stated another way,
individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. Since it cannot rightly be said that
“society” is a tangible entity capable of coherent, singular action, rights can
only apply to individuals.
But many government officials seem to disagree. A case currently before the United
States Supreme Court may change this conception of individual rights
altogether. District of
Columbia v. Heller, a case disputing the
constitutionality of a Washington DC law banning handgun ownership, seeks to
undermine the right to bear arms and the nature of Constitutional rights in
general.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 18 March 2008 22:46 )
|
The New Democracy Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Proposal II We the people, in order to secure a more responsive and representative government for the Nation's future, hereby establish term limits for Congress, provide for the nonpartisan and nonpolitical redrawing of voting districts, and establish a system of direct democracy by which Americans can overturn unjust or unpopular Federal legislation.
Section 1. All elected officials to Congress, both in the Senate and House of Representatives, shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) consecutive terms in office. Section 2. All Congressional voting districts should be redrawn by the Census Bureau in order to preserve geographic continuity and demographic accuracy; Congress itself should have no authority or influence in the redistricting process. Section 3. A national public referendum, constituting either 70% of the national voting public, or 3/4ths of all State legislatures, may abolish any federal legislation, spending measure, or newly-created agency or government organization. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 07 January 2008 09:48 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Random
Most Recent
Most Popular
