🚀 go-pugleaf

"Iconoclast" <Iconoclast@tiscali.co.za> wrote in message
news:s72dnRv9Gv-WFVXfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>
http://www.americanpatrol.com/GUESTCOLUMNS/DWYER/EminentDomainMAD_050702.html
>
>   Originally published in the June 26, 2005 issue of the Alamance
> Independent
>
>   Eminent Domain and The "Migrating" Hordes
>
>   By Mark Andrew Dwyer - 7/2/05
>
>   Eminent domain (from Latin dominium eminens meaning: supreme lordship)
is
> the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use
> without the owner's consent [Wikipedia]. It gives the state, and -
> therefore - whoever controls it, powerful, and in some countries,
draconian
> means to redistribute private wealth among, supposedly, all members of the
> community or society. Although in the U.S. the exercise of eminent domain
is
> restricted by prohibition in Fifth Amendment that "private property be
taken
> for public use, without just compensation," the recent ruling of the
Supreme
> Court of the United States (see Footnote) creates a reasonable doubt about
> the extent to which such a restriction can withstand pre-emptive pressure
> mounted by eminent domain's prospective beneficiaries.
>
>   This doubt is particularly disturbing in today's America that has been a
> target of million man invasion of foreign (mostly, Mexican) have-nots,
often
> referred to as "migrants," who due to their sheer numbers and exorbitant
> fertility rates may soon gain enough political clout to force use of
eminent
> domain as a vehicle of involuntary transfer of property from wealthy
> Americans to the "migrating" hordes (in order to "improve their lives," as
> they say). If the present "migratory" trends continue, particularly if the
> taxation remains at the current levels, condemnations of private property
> for public housing and infrastructure that are needed to properly
> accommodate poor "migrants" and their countless kids may become a
political
> necessity that no federal judge can resist. And since the term "just
> compensation" of the language of Fifth Amendment is equally vulnerable to
> court's capricious interpretation as "public use" has been, don't hold
your
> breath if you expect to get a fair market value for your home that your
city
> council decided to turn into an apartment complex for four families of
> "migrants" (and additional relatives from abroad that may wish to be
> "reunited" with these families).
>
>   Take, for instance, Los Angeles, not much more than just a cow town with
> population of few thousand in the middle of 19th century, and a megapolis
> inhabited by almost 4 million people and the second (after Mexico City)
> largest concentration of Mexicans on Earth today. US Census statistics
show
> that slightly less than 50% of L.A.'s population, or about 1.7 million, is
> Hispanic (although some estimates suggest that there are as many as 2.7
> millions Mexicans living in L.A.), some 1.3 million of whom have settled
in
> the city in the last 15 years. The proportion of Hispanic (mostly Mexican)
> pupils in L.A. Unified School District reached the astounding 80% and is
> indicative of future demographic composition of the City of Angels. With
> poverty rates among Hispanic "migrants" and home prices soaring, it's not
> difficult to predict the pressure that will build to redistribute private
> real property among the dominating but poor Mexicans as their numbers
grow.
> And the City Council (guess, what ethnic group will have a majority of
vote
> there?), empowered to condemn a private property by the last week's
decision
> of the Supreme Court, will be the least likely body to not yield to that
> pressure.
>
>   The above scenario is but one example of ways and means with which the
> "migrating" hordes can redistribute Americans' wealth among themselves. In
a
> country that is so vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation of its
> constitution by five judges with political agendas of their own and ruled
by
> a majority of vote (for which a proof of citizenship is usually not
> required), as the U.S. is, due enforcement of the border and immigration
> laws is a necessary condition for meaningful protection of liberty and
> property of its citizens. If the border and the immigration laws are not
> fully enforced, the only way for Americans to survive the mass invasion of
> poor but prolific "migrants," a hostile take-over if you will, and to keep
> their "wealth" intact, would be to abandon birth control altogether, like
so
> many "migrants" do, and enter a spiral of exponential population growth.
> This would resemble the nuclear weapon race that characterized the by-gone
> Cold War era - a strategy that once was deemed losing for all parties
> involved in the race.
>
>   Wouldn't it be much better to keep the invading hordes out? The eminent
> domain law is one of the many reasons for resounding "Yes" to this
question.
> It may well be the most important one.
>
>   FOOTNOTE. The term "public use" in the Fifth Amendment used to be
narrowly
> interpreted as projects of obviously public nature such as public roads or
> schools, but not anymore. The 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court decided
last
> Thursday (June 23, 2005) in Susette Kelo et al. versus City of New London
et
> al. that a city can condemn (seize with just compensation, that is) a
> private property for projects that, although not obviously public, would
> increase city's tax revenues or boost employment. "As a result, cities now
> have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls
> and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue" (quotation from
> "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes," by Hope Yen, The Washington
> Post, June 23, 2005,
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html )
> . Although a vast majority of critics of the Court's ruling fear that, as
a
> result of that decision, wealthy entrepreneurs may be able to de facto
evict
> fixed income citizens from their homes now, I see the future Marxist-style
> "social justice" as being more likely to use the ruling as a precedent. If
> generating tax revenue or boosting employment is enough for condemnation
why
> would one expect that cheap housing for poor "migrant" workers and their
> families is not? Just remember that out of five justices that were in
favor
> of the ruling, four (Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter) concurred with
Al
> Gore in Florida recount controversy in 2000, and one (Kennedy) was a
> notorious swing vote that often sided with the liberal faction of the
Court.

Fine article with an approach new to most of us.

Hank
>
>