Following an appalling display of hubris from elected officials on “both sides” of the aisle over the undeniably obvious election fraud which occurred last month, Conservatives are not only asking themselves why this level of theft has been allowed to happen against President Trump given the actors involved, but are now asking themselves “What’s next”?
The US Supreme Court clarifies that a constitutional violation is complete at the time property is taken.
As a property rights advocate/activist, I am beyond thrilled.
Local governments be forewarned, the path to pursue when property owner’s constitutional rights have been violated has just been shortened. Zoning ordinances which have grown to be nearly as large as the worlds largest fungus might now face appropriate challenges in venues that serve as constitutional protectors.
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has smashed a ‘takings’ precedent, and in doing so has made it easier for property owners beset with zealous planning and land use prohibition to clarify more immediately where a constitutional line is drawn. From the SCOTUS blog:
In its long-awaited opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that plaintiffs alleging that local governments have violated the takings clause may proceed directly in federal court, rather than first litigating in state court. The opinion overrules a 34-year-old precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, triggering a sharp dissent and another debate among the justices about the meaning of stare decisis. The majority opinion also rests on a reading of the takings clause—that a constitutional violation occurs at the moment property is “taken,” even if compensation is paid later—that may have consequences beyond this case.
The takings clause of the federal Constitution provides: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This takings case arose from a dispute between petitioner Rose Mary Knick and the township of Scott, Pennsylvania. Knick has a small graveyard on her property, and the township attempted to enforce against her an ordinance requiring such properties to be open to the public during daytime hours. Knick alleged an unconstitutional taking, but a federal court dismissed her suit because she had not first sought compensation in state court.
The 34-year-old precedent was not all that it upended.
Rock beats scissors. SCOTUS surely MUST beat smug moral discontent.
Hello #NeverTrump folks.
Repeat after me: “I want the United States Supreme Court to actually follow the constitution. Argue all you want that Trump is not a conservative, and is a loose cannon, etc., but when the rubber hits the road, it cannot be Hillary who names the next SCOTUS nominee.
Just ONE more supreme from the likes of the current left would be a disaster for Michigan. On the basis of the EPA’s effect in Michigan, as well as others, Hugh Hewitt has a point or two to make:
With hardly any effort at all I summoned up a dozen major cases where the switch on the court from 4-4-1 to 5-3-1 would be disastrous, beginning with Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, which was last year’s court ruling that reined in the EPA from imposing massive costs on the states without proper rule-making procedure and oversight and the Rapanos decision of 2006 which only gently (and barely) rebuked the Army Corps of Engineers from playing havoc with property rights. The prospect of a massive regulatory state with no meaningful judicial oversight at all did not deter the professor.
The EPA vehicle to property right losses might have been created by Nixon, but it will be nearly any administration as out of control as the current one that will drive it over us.
A second Clinton administration will repeatedly hit reverse to finish the job.
We have a Supreme Court Chief Justice whose mental state is seriously suspect. A fellow Supreme Court Justice who is apparently too concerned with “leaving a legacy” than actually following the letter of the law. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the judicial activism displayed by other SCOTUS Justices in preceding rulings (and these) on unrelated cases should also be a cause for concern for any Freedom-loving American. But that is better left for another discussion.
Now, the LGBTIQ-crowd wants to turn the screws just one more time.
Expect to see this flying in Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Hazel Park and Traverse City sometime soon…
States should no longer issue licenses for marriage whatsoever.
Already the federal government has determined whether we are capable of governing our own health choices. The ACA made sure that we are to buy THEIR preferred type of insurance or pay dearly for the failure to do so. The executive office driven EPA has determined that the coal fired plants in Michigan are not worthy of our electric payments, and that we would be better off blacked out and without lights (wait until 2017 folks!)
After today’s ruling it is quite clear that the state of Michigan needs a hands (or paws) off policy with regard to marriage. The federal government has assumed the responsibility for who is eligible for the license necessary to achieve marital bliss as of this morning. Logically it makes no sense to further burden the stae of Michigan’s legislative code with marriage requirements that have no meaning or cultural protections. Reasonable people can agree that such language only occupies our books and takes up space.
Our appropriate place in this great experiment of AmeriKa has ended.
The occupiers of the white-house have made it clear that a living constitution CAN be achieved if the push is strong enough. And if the stacking of the court has been properly done, there are numerous goals that can be met, never before imagined.
We finally have a chance to tell Obama where to shove the atrocity known as the ACA, but ...
The play is set.
State Senator Jim Marleau is simply a two faced Obama sycophant. He operates under the Republican banner, but he has presented himself as a wimpy cradle-to-grave patriarchal potlicker. On the upcoming decision in the Supreme Court he doesn’t represent the stated GOP view that Obamacare is bad, but rather wonders aloud (sympathetically) what all the leeches in Michigan will do if their precious health care entitlements go away. And then he suggests something must be done!
“He could have done it that way to begin with, but he wasn’t really excited about that,” said state Sen. Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion.
“I think he’d have to. Our back is up against the wall, and we’ve got a lot of people in this state who are using it. That’s the thing. What do you do with those people?”
Let them find their own insurance without fear of penalties you imbecile!