CONGRESS has nothing to do with your state and local economic development plans that include taking your home for "public use" and paying you "just compensation."
Remember, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to federal goverment. It is applicable to the STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a legitimate state interest that satisfies the Public Use Clause.
If you desire more protection than what the federal constitution provides for your private property interests, then you must appeal to your STATE political process to obtain that protection.
Here is a quote from SteveInClearwater
which is quite interesting about the SCOTUS:
What seems most fascinating to me is that Stevens wrote for the Majority here as he also did in the Raich case.
Here he says that it's not up to the feds to make blanket decisions for the states. Each state is welcome to write, pass and enforce their own legislation.
In Raich, he stated that it's up to the feds to make blanket decisions for the states. No state is welcome to write, pass and enforce their own legislation.
Fact is the SCOTUS has become America’s public enemy number one and acts in the interests of the rich and powerful.
What is most alarming about this transfer of an American family`s property by government to a private profit making business entity is that the business entity, Pfizer Inc,
is a internationally owned business operation with ``investors`` who are not even American citizens!
In other words, the force of America`s government is now being used to take the property of American citizens and hand it over to foreign financiers and investors, and such transfers of property are being upheld by the SCOTUS!
But heck, the writing was on the wall when the Stupid American allowed government to transfer the power of regulating Americas money to a private banking institution called the federal reserve. As Thomas Jefferson correctly warned:
``If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.``
Unfortunately, not one in ten thousand Americans understand how the federal reserve system, a private banking institution, is plundering the nation and picking the peoples pockets.
``History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance”, said James Madison
And, Jefferson further wrote: ``I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.``
Indeed, our founding fathers did in fact provide protection against such abuse when they authorize Congress, and only Congress, to coin our nation`s money and regulate the value thereof, and intentionally forbid a private banking institutions` notes to be made a legal tender.
The control over America`s money supply by a private banking institution may appear to be off topic at first glance but not to those who know how the force of government is used by the rich and powerful to plunder the wealth of nations. Control over the use of land, as well as the control over the issuance of a nation`s currency, has always been two of the most useful vehicles by which the rich and powerful [landlords and bankers] consolidate the wealth of nation’s into and under their control. In this case a private homeowner`s land being transferred to Pfizer Inc.
According to the SCOTUS "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,"
O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms"
, in this case Pfizer Inc!
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
If you think certain members of the SCOTUS are not Americas most formidable domestic enemies and assisting in the subjugation of our laws, and that a number of its members are not using their office of public trust to advance the fortunes of the rich and powerful, I suggest you study the dissenting opinion: KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
Justice O'Connor sums up the tyranny of the majority in the following words:
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
Also see the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas:
Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."
I cannot agree. 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, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1-2, 8-13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.
The servant has become the master over those who created a servant.