The Constitution is Dead. Supreme Court re-writes 5th Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that it is indeed permissible for state and municipal governments to seize property and give it to private concerns:

The 5-4 ruling _ assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Why is it that the Constitution is constantly being re-written by these black-robed charlatans? The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.(emphasis mine)

As a result of this decision, any government decision for what "public use" entails is good enough for the Supremes. Forget what our Founding Fathers said about the sanctity of private property:

John Rutledge: "Property was certainly the principal object of Society." ^[9]

Alexander Hamilton: "One great objt. of Govt. is personal protection of the security of property." ^[10]

John Adams: "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." ^[11]

"The right of property," Arthur Lee of Virginia declared, "is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." ^[12]

In a letter published on April 7, 1774 in the London Gazetteer, which sought to explain to the British the reasons for the Boston Tea Party, the unknown author said:

“...for the end of Government is the preservation of property, and there can be no property where there is an arbitrary power of taxation...[T]he law of nature, being founded in reason and justice, admits of property; for the better preservation of which, and for the use and enjoyment of it in peace and quiet, men entered into society. If therefore, any man, or body of men, claim a right to take away at pleasure from other men their property, and to dispose of it as they please[,] such claim tends to a dissolution of society, and is repugnant also to the law of nature, as it would place mankind in a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others.” ^[13]

But let's not have the original intent of the Constitution get in the way of tyranny by the government. Dont' let a little thing like the 5th Amendment get in the way of the continued march of the government's usurpation of power. This opens the door to any developmental entity with deep pockets and corresponding political ties to railroad their will over ordinary citizens. And the Constitution won't be around to protect them. Said Justice O'Connor in a dissenting opinion:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Rehnquist joined Justice O'Connor in that dissent (isn't it interesting how the more liberal elements of the court sided against the ordinary citizen and for big business? I thought liberals were the champions of the downtrodden!).

Yes, dear readers, as of today, June 23, 2005, we have stopped living in the United States of America. Instead, we have started living in a strange land where the Constitution no longer holds sway in protecting the rights of its citizens or limiting the power of government. If the 5th Amendment can be re-written; indeed if the 1st Amendment itself can be rewritten; the Constitution is, as of today, rendered meaningless, overthrown by a judicial coup. The final nail has been driven in the coffin of liberty as we have known it. Perhaps it is time to start fighting to take it back.