For those of you who thought that The Bill of Rights enshrined a series of 10 basic human rights, think again. On June 23 the Supreme Court of the United States in a split landmark ruling decided that the Fifth amendment of the U. S. Constitution didn’t really guarantee the citizens the right not to be deprived of their private property without just compensation. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer all found that what the founders of the nation really meant by the Fifth amendment was that you were guaranteed the right not to have your private property seized under Eminent Domain without just compensation, unless the government saw that it could generate more tax money by kicking you off your land and selling it to a developer.
at least that was the issue confronting the court in its ruling on Kelo Vs. New London, Connecticut. The court ruled in favour of the government of New London because the city was not taking the land from its owners to confer a benefit on a particular person, but to follow a "carefully considered development plan". In the past Eminent Domain has meant that land could be taken for public use and public use alone. The court has now stretched that interpretation to include "the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose’".
The judgment read, "without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power". In other words, if the local town council decides that it wants your land on the water because it can then be resold to a developer of condominium apartments, which will significantly increase the tax revenue from that land, then the Fifth amendment doesn’t apply and it’s okay for it to be seized.
The dissent from the majority opinion indicates that at least there are some judges sitting on the Bench who understand the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Justice Clarence Thomas points out in his dissenting opinion that the founders did not mean that private lands could not be seized for private use without just compensation. What they meant was that private lands could not be taken for private use under any circumstances. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went back to alexander Hamilton in her dissent to say that "security of property" is the one principle that the founders all agreed upon.
Of course, none of this matters if you have the majority on side. Justice John Paul Stephens who wrote the majority opinion contends that so long as local governments perceive that there will be an increased benefit through the seizure of private property, the said property may be legally seized. and in doing so, he adds, the Supreme Court would not engage in the business of attempting to second guess local governments about what is or isn’t for the public good.
So with the issuance of this opinion from five judicial activists, The Bill of Rights has essentially been altered to means something entirely different than that which the founders intended. It’s similar to alice in Wonderland’s Red Queen who says, "a word means exactly what I want it to mean". It would appear the Justices have adopted that line of reasoning.
as I understand the Constitution of the United States and its attendant amendments, the first 10 of which comprise The Bill of Rights, the founders got out from under the King’s thumb precisely because he and his ministers had the kind of arbitrary power over its subjects that the Supreme Court has just imposed on america’s citizens. By that token you can expect that there will be a plethora of "reinterpretations" of The Bill of Rights. They are already playing with the First amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion. Except, according to the Supreme Court, freedom of religion means that you are free to practice religion so long as it isn’t in a public place, like say a classroom or courthouse (Notwithstanding the fact that oaths are usually taken on a bible- even at The Supreme Court).
The second amendment, which guarantees the right to own and bear arms is also under attack and thanks to the National Rifle association (NRa) that’s at a temporary lull.
Perhaps the most important right is the 10th amendment, which guarantees that the powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited to the states belong to the people.
The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government…"
a good place to start might be with the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.