Private Homes may be taken for public good

[A.Melon]

> At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
> >
> >> Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you
> >> know you've been Bush-whacked.
> >
> >Maybe you should take another look at who voted how.  The Bushies
> >dissented on this opinion.  Go figure.
> 
> Not surprising at all.  The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by 
> members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's 
> decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and 
> the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign).

The conservative justices happen to be correct about that. If there is
a need for expansion of federal power, the solution is to pass an
amendment, not to read into the commerce and general welfare clauses
what was never there.

If the judiciary keeps supporting both good and bad laws on the basis
of Congress's interstate commerce power, eventually something is going
to break. Either we're going to have a civil war or the judiciary is
going to have to start contradicting its earlier opinions.

We the people should start a campaign to pass amendments in these
various areas so that the Supreme Court can revise its earlier
opinions without placing laws like the Civil Rights Act completely in
jeopardy.

These are a few areas which amendments could target:
healthcare
limiting complexity of the tax code if not repealing the 16th A.
NBC weaps (chems def'd by LD50 and quantity for gases and liquids)
reiterating the 2nd amendment with the exception of any banned NBC
regulation of airspace up to a certain altitude
acknowledgment that the U.S. has no authority over outer space
civil rights - discrimination
clarifying property rights (in light of Kelo)

If we don't need or can't agree on amendments in those areas,
respective legislation must be nullified. The Kelo decision is simply
incorrect, so an amendment correcting it is virtually mandatory.

We have no right to healthcare or welfare, and laws granting either
are invalid. We have a right to make, buy and sell any weapons we
wish, and laws stating otherwise are invalid. We have a right not to
be discriminated against by the government, and by purely public
institutions, and at polls. We have no right to equal treatment by
private corporations or private individuals. We have a right to use
the EM spectrum as we wish, and we have a right to possess whatever
substances we want.

I don't like some of those facts, but they are facts. In order to
change them, there is no alternative except to pass constitutional
amendments. Otherwise, the government will continue on the path from
incoherence to collapse.