I know it's long, so skip it until you have the time & inclination to read the whole thing.  But, it's important.  So please read the whole thing at some point.

I've been wanting to write something about this for about a week, but it aggravates me so much that I can't organize my thoughts on it; so, I'll just ask you guys for your thoughts.

The story is this:
     The Chemung County (NY) government is attempting to "purchase" certain land owned by the Johnson Family to make room for a "distribution facility" to be developed by an undisclosed Fortune 100 company.
     The Johnson Family has, so far, refused to sell; despite an offer by the county of $30,000 an acre, for land assessed at $12,000 an acre.
     As a result, the county is considering legal action to seize it through eminent domain.  
As one news article puts it, "Eminent domain would allow the government to seize Johnson's property without his consent. The amount paid to Johnson would be determined by a judge."
For more background on this specific case, you could check out these articles:
http://www.the-leader.com/archive/x1520648884
http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/NEWS01/802210327/1001/ARCHIVES
http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS01/802290318/1007/RSS06


     As you may know, the 2005 Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London, legalized government takings for any purpose that the local government perceives would "benefit" the community -- such benefits usually taking the form of increased tax revenue.  This case overruled prior law which allowed takings only for "public use", or for a "public purpose" (usually roads, utilities, sewage, etc.)  So, in one sense, the "taking" under "eminent domain"* proposed in the Chemung County situation is, post-Kelo, perfectly legal.

* here's a good explanation of what eminent domain USED TO BE, before Kelo: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html

     However, in another (more accurate) sense, this action, and the Kelo decision itself, are beyond unconstitutional.  They are in blatant and undeniable contradiction to the principles upon which this nation was founded.   The ideal of republicanism**, the foundation of liberty in America; the concepts of natural law and self determination; and government of the People, by the People, and for the People --- all are in direct opposition to the tyrannical appropriation of private property allowed by Kelo and endorsed by local and State governments across America.
                                                                    ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
    I say that Kelo and subsequent acts are "beyond" unconstitutional because, although they are diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of, and the intent of, the U.S. Constitution -- they are "legal" as nearly-comical misinterpretations of the Constitution by the communist members of our highest court.  However, they cannot, by any reasonable "reading", "interpretation", misconstruance, or misunderstanding be squared with the founding principle of this nation as expressly described in the Declaration of Independence.  That founding principle is this: that there are RIGHTS -- natural, or God-given -- RIGHTS that CANNOT be legitimately denied to the citizens of ANY nation or ANY government.  ANY nation; ANY government, which infringes upon these natural rights is, by definition, TYRRANY.
    So, what are these RIGHTS?  Well, aside from those specifically elucidated in the Bill of Rights; you may remember the THREE INALIENABLE RIGHTS listed in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
     Rather than enter a philosophical discussion of how the "Pursuit of Happiness" is tied inevitably and irrevocably to the right to own property; let me simply address a seemingly insignificant point of history.  The Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson.  According to Jefferson, the ideas in the Declaration were commonly expressed throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.  Jefferson primary source of inspiration was John Locke's Second Treatise of Government.  Ideas, principles, and even some phrasing were taken directly from Locke's writings.  Among these adoptions were the premise that inalienable natural rights consisted primarily of "Life, Liberty and Property".   According to Jefferson, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."
    In the final days/hours before the Declaration was signed, it was Ben Franklin who insisted upon changing "Life, Liberty and Property" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
   Nevertheless, the ideals and founding principles of the United States were widely understood to include an inalienable right to property.  This understanding was, at the time, considered a matter of universal agreement and of "common sense" -- to steal Thomas Paine's title.  Throughout the vast majority of this nation's history, the UNDENIABLE RIGHT TO PROPERTY has been accepted as a fundamental part of the American experience and the justifiable predominance of free-market capitalism.  It is only through prolonged distance from founding principles; through distortion of the concept of inalienable rights; and through decades and centuries of the perversion of the clear and plain purpose of the United States Constitution and American Government overall, that a result such as Kelo could be obtained.  
   That there is an undeniable, indisputable, and inalienable God-given RIGHT for American citizens to own property cannot be reasonably argued.  Likewise, that NO Government has any claim to such private property, except for public PURPOSE and with reasonable compensation, cannot be denied without giving power and credence to tyranny.
  
  
     The distinction between "public use" or "public purpose", and public or community "benefit" is not a trivial one.  "Public Uses" and "Public purposes" are those things for which governments, generally, were initially created.  On a federal level, this means the defense of the nation, and the facilitation of interstate trade, and little else.  On a State, or local, level, this may include services which are necessary to the functioning of society, but which are unachievable by individual citizens or property owners.  This includes things like roads, utilities, sewers, public parks, etc..
      "Public Uses" are those improvements which are for use by ANY and ALL members of the Public.
     "Public Purposes"  are achievements or goals which a) are designated by, and originating within "the public" or "the people",  b) that have a universal, or public, benefit (i.e. one that is available to all of the public, not limited to certain members) AND c) which are for Public Use
     
     "Public Benefits" are an abstraction.  They require - without exception - a determination of what is beneficial to the public. In Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court has allowed this determination to be made, not by the public, but by State and Local Governments.  Furthermore, the Kelo decision unambiguously defines increased tax revenue to the government as a "Public Benefit", regardless of the impact upon the public, the society, the nation, or INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
       In other words, the majority opinion in the Kelo case unequivocally abrogates individual property rights which, as you may remember, are INALIENABLE except through tyranny.
     Furthermore, if the determination of the best (most economical) use of land by the government smacks of the planned economy of the former Soviet Union, this is no coincidence.  The determination of benefit to the public, to society, or to the economy by the government -- and the imposition of that determination by the government -- is COMMUNISM.  There are three factors of production to any economy; Land, Labor, and Capital.  The Kelo ruling and the subsequent use of eminent domain to effect what governments decide is the best (most economical) use of land, is, quite obviously, the elimination of the free-market disposition of that land.  By and through the unchallengeable Un-Americanism of the Kelo decision, communism, as evidenced by government control of the means of economic production, has become reality in this country.
      This is not hypothetical.
      This is not ambiguous.
      This is not a future concern.
      This is not a slow-slide down a socialist slope.
      THIS IS COMMUNISM ..... HERE..... NOW... TODAY.   Down your street, or in the next town over; this will inevitably reach YOU and YOUR "Property"
Anyway, I'd like to hear others thoughts on the issue.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
     When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

     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 to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

     In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

     Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

     We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Eyas wrote:       In other words, the majority opinion in the Kelo case unequivocally abrogates individual property rights which, as you may remember, are INALIENABLE except through tyranny.
     Furthermore, if the determination of the best (most economical) use of land by the government smacks of the planned economy of the former Soviet Union, this is no coincidence.  The determination of benefit to the public, to society, or to the economy by the government -- and the imposition of that determination by the government -- is COMMUNISM.  There are three factors of production to any economy; Land, Labor, and Capital.  The Kelo ruling and the subsequent use of eminent domain to effect what governments decide is the best (most economical) use of land, is, quite obviously, the elimination of the free-market disposition of that land.  By and through the unchallengeable Un-Americanism of the Kelo decision, communism, as evidenced by government control of the means of economic production, has become reality in this country.
      This is not hypothetical.
      This is not ambiguous.
      This is not a future concern.
      This is not a slow-slide down a socialist slope.
      THIS IS COMMUNISM ..... HERE..... NOW... TODAY.   Down your street, or in the next town over; this will inevitably reach YOU and YOUR "Property"
Anyway, I'd like to hear others thoughts on the issue.

This decision is one of the most outrageous decisions ever from the Supremes.  Five "justices" demonstrated such utter contempt for the constitution as to figuratively wipe their collective behinds with it.  

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Eyas said:  THIS IS COMMUNISM ..... HERE..... NOW... TODAY.   Down your street, or in the next town over; this will inevitably reach YOU and YOUR "Property"

My thought is that if HRC or BHO become President and nominate the judges that match their ideology, all that you have written about will seem like a mere walk in the park.

Not to worry!  We have John McCain we can count on.  He will vigorously defend our 1st amendment rights!  He believes in free speech.  He will appoint conservative judges like Sam Alito to protect our 2nd amendment rights and private property!  He will insure that capitalism and free markets will be unfettered by government regulation...  

No, sorry.  I couldn't get through that with a straight face either....

Wow, Paleocon, I am still providing you humor.  I thought we were done with the conversation since you don't think I get it and I don't think you get it.  Apparently, I was wrong.  I'm still providing you an outlet for massive chuckles.  

You have never heard me say anything good about McCain, but I am going to hold my nose and vote for my country.  To me, because of judges and because of our troops, I cannot do any other thing.  I have a vested interest in the latter.

McCain has promised to nominate judges of the same ideology as Roberts and Alito.  If he doesn't, they will at least not be Ginsbergs.  McCain has promised to be a strong Commander-in-Chief.  I believe that one.  I don't believe there will be another terrorist attack until after the elections.  They could strike to get at Bush as a final farewell, or they could because our Government will be in a transition and they will feel like we are at our weakest.  If Obama is elected, we will be at our weakest.  No question about that.  If McCain is elected, they could do it as a challenge to see how he will react for the future.  He will stand up.  Obama or HRC will sing Kumbaya or go look for a drug factory to bomb.

The borders are a big issue, but McCain says he gets it so we shall see whether he gets it enough to do something about it.  Probably not but I believe it will not be as bad as either of the two socialists on the Dem side.    

Yes, I am going to settle.  I know you live and die by your principles and you will NEVER VOTE FOR JUAN.  I get where you are coming from and I simply think you are wrong.  I am a conservative but I am also an American.  My country needs me to fight for her.  Since there is nothing I can do to make the Republican nominee be someone acceptable to me or other conversatives, I must fight for my country against the socialist sieve.  I must vote for the RINO.  

So, in the months to come, while I am providing you with all the sh*ts and giggles, I hope you enjoy yourself immensely.  If Obama is elected, or HRC for that matter, you won't find much to laugh about.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

No..don't vote for Juan because he is not a real conservative.
No..don't vote for Juan because he is not a real conservative.
No..don't vote for Juan because he is not a real conservative.

Do nothing because Juan is not a real conservative.  When you lose your country to the socialist triumph of evil, you will have done nothing but sit on your principles and whine.