 Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky  Like I said, the context of the quote wasn't trying to convey the idea that the government can just seize everything you own for no valid reason. If I'm not mistaken, all it was talking about is that ultimate ownership of property in the United States is by the United States (e.g. you can't declare independence of exercise beyond the law of the land). Your property may be private property but it is still United States soil. Your property is the government's only insofar as it is within the borders and laws of the United States.
Likewise, the quote doesn't necessarily counteract the Constitution. This is why the government reserves the right to seize public property for the benifit of the public in eminent domain, if and only if they provide just compensation (as per the Fifth Amendment) and the due process of law through condemnation proceedings (as per the Fourteenth). Eminent domain also can apply to air and water rights.
The only thing it is saying is that you and your property cannot exercise freedoms as a completely independent entity from the United States. You still own your property but ultimate theoretical 'ownership' is reserved to the state. We're not a collection of independent nations that vote in a 'super government': we're all citizens of the United States.
This is a concept that exists in every modern nation, and has existed so long as there were governments. This isn't a radical declaration, and it certainly isn't "Communist" or necessarily "feudal". It seems you're just throwing around generalizations without even knowing the true contexts of their words. | I for one would like to see just where the ideology that declares The United States is not consisted of Individual Governmental Entities with transcending rights to a Central Federal Government comes from. When each "little nation" indeed has it's own independent "Constitution" and the transcending right to make its own laws for its own peoples. Surely this ideology is not found in the US Constitution, but rather from an opined pragmatic idea made from the study of previous Judges instead of from a study made in the constitution. Please show me were the US Constitution does not consider each state an individual entity, as each indeed has its own constitution. And please do not quote form some false ideology of legal opinion offered as "precedence", show me the wording of the US Constitution. What, are these State Constitutions only superfluous in comparison to the all powerful Federal Government? In fact if it did not consider them to be self governed, why is there a mandate for each state to remain a republican government (Article 4 Section Sec. 4). Thus in my opinion, what you present is in itself nothing short of social communism.
For indeed, that is the "ONLY" way for the social communists to morph our Democratic Republic into a social democracy, they must present the Central Government as ALL Powerful, thus what they opine form the bench effects ALL fifty "individual" states, and the US Constitution does not even have to considered as they use the "pseudo" term, "Judicial Review" as having authority over even the words of the constitution. Again, just where is the ideology presented in the constitution that "precedence" is to be the final factor in considering the process of Judicial Review, I thought the actual words of the constitution was to be the final authority, and if nothing was found to be contradictory, the remaining "unspoken" words were the sole property of the STATES? At least that's what our 10th article of the Bill of Rights declares.
I just have one question. Why, in your opinion, was "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law, which was the cornerstone of American Jurisprudence until the 1920's, suggested by the Secular Law Institutions Like Harvard not to be considered any longer as a final authority in making opinion from the bench? My opinion is simple, it is suggested that instead of actually making study of the US Constitution, law students should indeed study previous opinion of sitting Judges, instead of the actual words of the constitution, because Harvard and the likes considered the Constitution as much an "evolving" entity as was man and they made the self appointment as the authority to supervise this evolution , thanks to the "in vogue" pseudo rage....Darwinism. (R)
Last edited by Ralph; 04-18-2008 at 06:45 PM.
|