You no longer exist. Sure, you can continue to call yourself that out of habit or ignorance, but the simple fact remains that if your military capabilities are less than those of the U.S. government, you do not own property. See here for details:
Since all anyone has to do is convince some city or state officials that they'll do something with your property that will enrich said officials more than whatever you're doing with your property in order to get your property promptly handed over to them, there's really not much point in pretending like you own something. Certainly most people will be safe from egregious abuse of eminent domain for at least the next few years, and possibly until they die, but since there are no longer any obstacles standing in the way of "takings" for any reason, however plausible, anyone who hasn't bribed any public officials lately would be wise to worry. And bear in mind that the only reason you're still holding the property you bought and paid for is because someone better connected politically than you doesn't currently want it.
Taking homes from little old ladies to build office parks has now been established as a Constitutional right, since "public use" now means anything any corrupt city official dreams up. One can't help but wonder why the Framers would have put the phrase "public use" into the Fifth Amendment if it was intended to have no meaning whatsoever. This is the worst case of judicial activism yet. These "justices" did not merely warp and twist the words of the Constitution to have meanings entirely contrary to those clearly written. This time they disregarded it entirely and made up some rambling nonsense about benefitting the public. 100% of the justices nominated by Democrats were in favor of decimating property rights. Another was nominated by Reagan, but has firmly established himself as a bed-wetting liberal. Democrats are supposedly the "party of the people" who protect "the little guy." This protection has now taken the form of declaring open season on the poorest home and business owners and handing the fruits of their labors to the richest developers. Party of "the people" indeed. Any ignorant assclowns that think the Bush administration is out to take away all of their freedoms would do well to look upon this obviously unconstitutional decison by the Left's favorite justices. This ruling was based upon nothing but own hatred of private property rights and love of heavy-handed government by the Supreme Court's liberal members, and it is perfectly consistent with liberal doctrine.
Who are the monsters applauding this decision? Certainly a few developers are licking their chops in anticipation of knocking down a widow's home to build a gas station or some equally noble act. But most developers recognize this decision as the evil thing that it is. If one developer builds a restaurant, but another developer thinks the location would be ideal for a hotel, then Developer A will be forced to surrender their property to Developer B, because the hotel might send more revenue to be squandered by the politicians who gave Developer B the land. This decision adversely affects just about anyone who owns or ever aspires to own any property. But then you have your random useful idiots who will applaud anything their puppet-masters tell them to. You know, those people who believe that no government entity anywhere has ever done anything not in the absolute best interest of every human being and that everything would be wonderful and the world a glorious utopia if free will could be completely destroyed once and for all. They like this decision because they are incapable of thinking but are quite capable of spouting of uninformed bullshit. But the people clapping loudest are the most morally repugnant and disgusting human beings alive. One group is of course the politicians who think the cities or states they represent belong to them exclusively, while the people who actually own things and make things happen exist at their mercy. This is possibly the most reprehensible group. The others are the people who have both the resources to bribe said politicians and the hateful arrogance required to deny people basic human rights. ie, People who believe anyone standing in the way of what they want should be displaced and/or killed. (Yes, killed: Briber of Public Officials wants Granny's house, promises Public Official big$$$, Public Official tells Granny to get the hell out, Granny stays in her house, Public Official sends goons to take house by force, Granny doesn't leave fast enough, Granny gets shot, Briber of Public Officials builds condos. And it goes on: condos don't bring in promised revenue, Briber of Public Officials #2 forces Briber of Public Officials #1 off the land, builds office building. And on and on and on...)
Yes, this problem could be mitigated by states and cities passing laws restricting eminent domain. A Constitutional amendment obviously won't do a damn bit of good, since it's obvious that liberal justices can read one thing in the Constitution, then base their decision on something completely different and pretend like their nonsense has some Constitutional basis. And since city and state governments are the greatest beneficiaries of eminent domain abuses, it might be a bit much for them to act against their own interests, particularly when the highest court in the land has given them the green light to confiscate anything they wish and hand it over to their buddies. And if your politicians are Communist-leaning Democrats, who don't believe anyone other than government officials should own property a la former Soviet Union, the prospects are even more dismal.
8:38 AM
