avoiding and evading
Debra_Law wrote:
jwk:
I don't understand your beef.
The Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause in the United States Constitution is a limitation on Congress's power to take private property for public use without just compensation.
Kelo v. City of New London is a STATE (Connecticut) eminent domain case.
The Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause" applies to federal action; it does not apply directly to state action. The only way you can argue that the Fifth Amendment can apply to state action is if you first concede that the "Takings Clause" has been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.
Given your previous ardent stance that the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the amendment to benefit people of color and use of the Amendment for any other purpose subverts the Constitution -- you have no basis for a beef.
You previously wrote:
jwk wrote:The historical truth is, the 14th Amendment was adopted with the legislative intent to prohibit state adopted legislation based upon race color or previous condition of slavery, and, to preclude the power of the state to be used in such a fashion as to impose unequal burdens or treatment based upon race color or previous condition of slavery.
The legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to state laws which make distinctions based upon criterion other than race, color or previous condition of slavery. . . .
The notion that the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means is far from being “provocative”. It’s just plain stupid, at least to a freedom loving people who intended to bind the hands of government by the chains of a written constitution! The truth is, the Constitution means what its framers and ratifiers intended it to mean!
As a matter of fact, the most fundamental principle regarding constitutional law is to carry out the intent of the constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who ratified it. To do otherwise is to view the constitution as nothing more than a list of suggestions subject to the whims and fancies of those in political power.
and you wrote:
jwk wrote:A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution --- thereby making the first Civil Rights Act constitutional --- does not support the claim that those who framed and ratified it intended it to apply in a very broad manner so as to prohibit state legislation making distinctions beyond race color or previous condition of slavery!
. . . .
The truth is, members of our Supreme Court are subjugating our constitutional system and supplanting their personal whims and fancies as being within the legislative intent of our Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it--- such action being a blatant rebellion against our Constitution system and meeting the definition of tyranny!
Unless you first concede that Fourteenth Amendment has a broader application than you first asserted; and you concede that the Supreme Court did NOT commit an act of tyranny by incorporating Bill of Right protections into the Fourteenth Amendment to be applicable to the States (giving the Fourteenth Amendment a much broader application than what you contend the framers' and ratifiers' intended);
you have no basis for criticizing the Kelo case. After all, if the Fifth Amendment's takings clause did not apply to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, the Kelo plaintiffs would never have had a federal forum to challenge state action in the first place. Accordingly, you wouldn't have the Supreme Court to kick around and blame as public enemy number 1.
Now, what was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment again? Remind us again what the framers' and ratifiers' intent was when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
john w k wrote:Debra_Law wrote:jwk:
I don't understand your beef.
The Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause in the United States Constitution is a limitation on Congress's power to take private property for public use without just compensation.
Your post makes no sense in relation to what I have posted. If you have something particular in mind in regard to what I have posted, then post my specific words, and then state your specific objections to what I have posted.
Did you forget about your criticism of the Kelo case . . . the subject matter of this thread?
You posted criticism of the Kelo case, didn't you? You identified the Supreme Court as a public enemy, didn't you?
You know exactly what my objections are to your criticism. It centers on your hypocrisy. I specifically set forth your prior inconsistent stance on the Fourteenth Amendment that makes your current criticism of the Supreme Court a farce.
If we confine Fourteenth Amendment construction and jurisprudence in the manner that you demand in accordance with the framers' intent as you proclaim that intent to be, then the Fifth Amendment would only apply to federal action and the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to even hear the Kelo case.
Unless you first acknowledge that your previous claims concerning the Fourteenth Amendment were flawed in order to make the Fifth Amendment's taking clause applicable to the States via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . then you have NO BEEF with the Supreme Court.
In order to criticize the Supreme Court for failing to apply the Fifth Amendment's taking clause appropriately to STATE action . . . you must first acknowledge that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case. This is something you can't do unless you retract your former stance on the Fourteenth Amendment.
You painted yourself into a corner, and you don't want to address your inconsistent construction of the Fourteenth Amendment because that would require substantial backtracking and double talk. I understand your desire to avoid my post, but at least be honest. Don't pretend that my post didn't make sense. You know what I'm talking about.
You and Brandon can commiserate all you want--but I do believe if a subject is important enough to discuss--especially a subject as important as the United States Constitution--then people should make an effort to know what they're talking about. Brandon never supports his arguments with citation to authority. He pulls totally insane ideas out of the dark recesses of his uneducated brain and thinks he knows what he's talking about. You, on the other hand, have made an attempt to educate yourself concerning the Constitution. You add the letters "ACRS" after your initials at the end of your posts. You have established yourself as an expert who runs his own "American Constitutional Research Service." Accordingly, you must be held to higher standard.
Your level of constitutional expertise has plateaued on platitudes. (E.g., the servant has become the master . . . blah, blah, blah . . . ). A true constitutional scholar would never be satisfied at resting his so-called expertise on the laurels of "original intent" based on selected writings and a few quotations from the founding fathers. Why don't you stretch and expand your knowledge base? Start with Fourteenth Amendment construction and jurisprudence.
Again, until you revise your stance on the Fourteenth Amendment, you have no gripe with the Supreme Court.
