The Small Government Times
U.S. Military Photos Military Photograph
Shell casings fly as Air Force Staff Sgt. Christopher Oshana fires an M-9 handgun during proficiency training at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.


RECENT CONTENT:

» Earmarks up and down
August 19th, 2008

» Stevens makes nice profit
August 19th, 2008

» Musharraf resigns control
August 18th, 2008

» Downturn is good news
August 17th, 2008

» Russian attacks looming?
August 17th, 2008






Want email alerts?  Signup here
Email this article Email this article     Print this article Printer friendly version     Comment on this article Article Comments (0)

Supreme Court grants unconstitutional power

By: Steve Adcock | Submitted on: 06/24/05

EDITORIAL - Just recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cities can take private property away from people for the purposes of developing non-public (commercial) interests. Justice John Paul Stevens, one member of the 5-4 majority opinion, said, ?Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government.?

With all due respect to the justice, his job is not to uphold ?long-accepted? traditions of a government fraught with grossly unconstitutional legislation and an almost blood-thirsty desire for almighty power. His job, as a justice of the highest court in the land, is to uphold the Constitution. He took an oath to do just that.

Justice William H. Rehnquist opposed this decision, basing his objection on a ?basic limitation on government power?, as defined in the Constitution of the United States. Which justice is right?

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution grants the federal government the right to seize property only for ?public interests?. Word for word, the clause says, ??nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.? The decision handed down by our robed magicians did not uphold Constitutional rights to the federal government, but granted it additional rights by providing it power to take private property away for private use, such as the development of office buildings or shopping centers.

This decision is not only striking, but downright frightening. Essentially, this means any of us can have our property taken from us for virtually any reason. The Constitution no longer protects us from government seizures of our property. We have the right to maintain our homes only if the government hasn?t yet found a better use for that land.

This decision is shameful, but not uncommon for the Supreme Court, which at one time upheld slavery. Our representatives in Congress need to be urged to replace our Supreme Court justices with those with a better understanding of the limited powers of the government, as enumerated in the Constitution.

Steve Adcock is the founder and developer of SmallGovTimes.com.

OTHER ARTICLES BY STEVE ADCOCK