🚀 go-pugleaf

"arminius" <richard norton@cybertrails.com> wrote in message 
news:g-mdnR7m2dlRhFTfRVn-rg@sedona.net...
>
> "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

Just one of many ways of looking at it. Heres an interesting piece I've 
found;
http://www.rense.com/general54/foxscalltoreplace.htm
-- 
Roughrider50


-- 
"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here 
for only 100 per cent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and 
nothing else."-- Theodore Roosevelt


>>
>>
>
>