Unrestrained Judicial rulings (Ten Mile Square)

This Constitution for the United States of America, was amended to prevent the Federal government from abridging the individual rights of the People, whether they were living under the jurisdiction of a State, or not.

"This ten miles square may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states
and may . . . become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes! Here the federal
courts are to sit . . . what sort of jury shall we have within the ten miles
square? The immediate creatures of government!" George
Mason

This above quote was a warning by George Mason. Do not place these people under a Constitution, that affords to them, no fundamental protections. This was a gravely ominous foretelling of those otherwise unrestrained Judicial rulings. But now nevertheless this is what these people in DC, and those in our States now oddly enough face because our first ten amendments had been constructed into this Constitution, now that this once trusted and revered Constitutional plan has been turned against us. This has happened because this Constitution has been allowed through our own passiveness, to be reconstructed by those who have not this authority, and this simply because we ourselves have wrongly considered that we are sufficiently not capable of defending it. This unwarranted and un- fathered subjection has now unjustly tasked these people under direct government control with no fundamental protections, except to that of a Federal judiciary which has now upon its own provocations of will, become as if the immediate creatures of that government.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting
the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or
abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be
added." - preamble to the
amendments.

These amendments and the procedures for adding and declaring a change to any of these declaratory and restrictive clauses, and to this, there affect, were only to be by there proper allowance, specific, and were to be by these directions Constitutionally outlined, to prevent the abuse of this document, by all governments, that can be found within this Federal republic, as well as to this, their own Judiciaries. Our peoples most important Constitutional amendments were never intended to be selectively assigned by this new agent of choice as if, for our Nation, for our States, and for our people, these were to be nothing more then mere directories to this process of permeable government laws.
"We the people" Have now become nothing more then consigned living organisms capable of nothing more then this involuntary movement, precisely because we have neglectfully allowed these Constitutions not to restrain and limit those laws that are unjustly encroaching upon our own individual liberties. This Supreme court's National liberty to grant these away my fellow Americans has become no better then British Permission by Law.

Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and others wanted a Bill of Rights in the State Constitutions, because they feared that without them these State governments would eventually assume that the peoples rights did not exist beyond that of there own written legislative laws. If the founding fathers of this Nation had thought that any State, or any Federal legislation, would have been sufficient, or as equal, to a Constitutional deceleration of rights, they simply would have lobbied for legislative statutory laws of protection. These Constitutional procedures were never to be rewritten by these authorities of this, or any other Judiciary, and certainly these amendments were never meant to be left undefended when the unreasonable gravities of such opinions, as these, are then to become as if a National fact, they have overarched there own authorities.

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the
constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an
amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no
change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of
good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The
precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or
transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." -George
Washington's Farewell Address September 17, 1796

A New Economic Bonanza for Property Confiscation.

Those belligerent State and local takings are now to be Federally funded, Although Congress may deny it, they are now more then just innocent and unaccountable witnesses.

‘Kelo’ Property Rights Protections stripped from housing bill
Posted by John Berlau "As a result, the billions of dollar in new grants the bill provides for “the production, preservation and rehabilitation” of housing units, could stimulate a bonanza of state and local property confiscation of the type green-lighted in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision " Kelo v. New London

Also, See My Post on H.R.4128

THE TIME MACHINE

If we the people now no longer require that our governments defend what they know is right, how can we ever expect that in the future they will do what they know is right.

Our Nations legislators have become so empowered by this simplicity, of tepid responses, that they now feel perfectly at ease when they present only these surface pretenses of defending their own rights to make and maintain our laws. They now do not even submit to this bear minimum of what is Constitutionally required of their positions to defend their own responsibility of representing the people.

One day these legislators throughout this Nation will realize that they have surrendered all those very reasons for their own existence, and with the gallows support of our peoples posterity these mistakes will be realized and then jealously, and rightfully defended against. This current generation's ignorant belief that freedom is free will confound itself to favor absolute war, absolute division, or absolute surrender.

Sometimes there are National, or State issues that are so gravely important to this of free Government, that a Nation can not afford to trust by its mere chance that an absolute supposing of judicial veto power would not be the very causing of its own failure to govern for the people. Many British loyalists believed in this convenience of letting others decide their Nations future.

The title of this post “The Time Machine” is simply intended to orient you the reader generally to my understandings, that it is upon these occasions of our own unreasoned submissions, that we have assured to ourselves, that nothing will be left for our own posterity unless it is made to be allowable under this extreme oligarchy of the courts.

READ MORE!

KELO COURTS - SHELL GAME!

(Revised Nov 7/2008)
One thief hands your property to another, and then he says to you "look I have nothing of yours." and then this second thief hands it back to the first, and now he says "look here, I also have nothing of yours." Suvate - It is finished.

Takings Claim Goes From State Court To Federal Court, And Now Back To State Court
"a seemingly endless procedural game where property owners are forced to keep guessing which shell the pea is under"

“Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings
challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.”
- KELO

Do you see any Public Purpose defined, by this Court, as to what will ever satisfy it? The purpose of regulating the police power and the good government of it, this has now been secured by this Supreme court from any possible Constitutional insult.

To help illustrate these points, I have placed some in-line links below, two recent court cases, and the url's of three vary insightful and clip the target commentaries.

Blog URLs:
Hollywood property rights case: Tale of two courts

Cert Petition in Goldstein v. Pataki: How to Plead Kelo Pretext April 01, 2008

AY eminent domain appeal asks the Supreme Court to clarify Kelo decision April 02, 2008

"But the appeal stresses another angle, not the quantity of
public benefits--which is in dispute--but that of legitimacy. The appeal notes
that courts evaluating Atlantic Yards relied on Supreme Court precedent like
Bermanv. Parker (1954) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), which
defer to legislative decisions, while a 2007 case decided by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, Franco v. National Capital Revitalization
Corporation, declares that Kelo allows inquiry into the question of
pretext."

Court Cases:

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Supreme Court of Missouri

This Supreme court has created the perfect shell game of confusion and it is
through those bewilderment’s of their own making that they have bound us to this
purpose of KELO, anticipating for themselves that this will be productive of
nothing but government mischief and Judicial disorder they have solidified our
reliance upon them, for we are now held more obliged to this higher purpose,
then we are to our very own Constitution.
Read more

Thomas Jefferson Writes about judiciary bodies

Government theft - Self Serving Permission

(Revised Nov 15/2008)

"There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development
from the other public purposes that we have recognized."This KELO Majority rule

Properly functioning governments, are governments that are held to certain definable restrictions, and these restrictions are not to be simply left up to their own governments rights to experiment in such unprincipled ways.
And surely our Constitution was not meant to be isolated from its effective use, as it is now being said to be a permissibly perishable thing, under this control of man made laws, for it is these governments themselves which make these laws, and it would not then be of any sensible assurances to us, when our legislatures have proclaimed that they are the ones controlling themselves.

When the Supreme court admitted that it has neither the authority nor the inclinations to describe for a nation what government thievery is, it has at the same time attempted to claim for itself that it still retains its own inclinations, and thus its own authority, to describe for a nation what government thievery is not. Those who have now financially secured these private governments, to be in their own pockets, have succeeded precisely because this Supreme court has suspended our peoples own authority, to this very use of our own amendments.

This convoluted reasoning, and this twisted logic, has now made it perfectly clear that this Republic can not rely on the judgments of those who rest upon their own opinions of us. We must decide for ourselves what others are claiming is an unascribable national thing, or we will once again be a nation of people who will be lead by those detachable masters of certainty, and not a people who have designed perceivable restraints upon their governments.

If this nation is not capable of controlling what it has created, then what it has created will twist and shape itself until it is no longer recognizable.

The KELO Encroachment.

This "KELO" is a deceleration of rights for all government to use independently, as they may now see it convenient to override the true constitutions of the people, for their own private use, of our property.

Governments private rights to the use of our property has now suspended our public’s right to use our very own amendments, in that it is once more again the right of our elected officials to individually legislate upon our peoples national amendments to their own favorable regards, as they are now bestowed this very privilege thru the supreme courts often divided and ever changing inclinations, now that all of our peopled amendments are of the selective natures of that very court. This national constitution is not a piece of legislation that can now be disarmed by our state legislators or even disrobed by any federal or state government judicial agencies.

Acting as if they were the only composers of this American compact and as if they were to be held only upon their own comprising’s of it, states, and their community governments, do not have any individual constitutional receiving powers to benefit in any way upon these amendment modifying performances of this KELO, as these are changes that are made to purposely violate our national amendment, and as such, this is the gift of a changed amendment that is not to be granted rightly thru the rulings of any divided or united decrees of judges, nor is it that these governments can presume that they are the only ones to rightly express what must be of the full entitlements and mutual understandings of these other parties, that are also consigned as well to this very compact.

Governments are not the only entities with the reciprocal qualifications that have entitled them to these first ten amendments as if they alone are the singularly favored factions owning for themselves these amendments, as if the people were only the resident recipient of them if governments or their proxies claim that they have this right to them, and no governments are authorized as if it were placed upon their own free will to forgo the constitutional procedures found in this very compact, specifically designed to promote its own tranquility, and the tranquillity of the people of this very nation, and to that which is not to be neglect, in the rightful calmness of a nation, are those very disturbances that have already arrived between our very own states, and the massive potentials for disorder that can be most easily now configured, and to those which are being currently produced upon this parceling out of these certain enumerated rights to only selected members of this purposely constituted clique, as these gratuitous promotions are found to be permeating throughout this performance of KELO, within those actions of encroachment meant to perforate our nations constitution with this supreme courts opposition to our very own national rights to the equal conformity that must be preformed by all parties in all regards to those very procedures that are entrenched in this constitutional compact and to those potentials of there very use for us all.

This KELO decree is no part of our United States Constitution, by which our states have agreed to accept or reject national amendments, or the changing of them, only thru this constitutions proper channels, as provided for in this foundationally superior legal document, that has no other influences equal to that of our properly produced and properly excepted amendments, and there is no compact of greater rank or station then that of this peoples constitution, and only through its very own self, can this very fact be provided for, upon relief, thru the proper constitutional actions of those entities that have formed this very compact and of those that have been accepted to be part of this union under the strict understandings that they would not compromise this very compact even if they are granted this permission by others to do so.

This KELO is an invitation to all state legislators, to concur in a breach of the Constitution of the United States, of which they profess to support. It must be remembered that the state legislators alone are not the only parties confined to this very compact, if this very compact is to still exert its very presents upon us all. This compact was preconstructed to be the compelling document of unity to the coexistence of a federal government with, the several states, and a people united.
It is incumbent upon all that are irrevocably committed to this union while it still exists, to be without release, for this very deceleration of compact to remain uncorrupted, none of these parties are to be conserved from harm brought upon this very compact, as if they are particularized sovereignties detachable. This KELO, is constructed as such, to divide by degrees, the responsibilities of these parties to the negative, of the proper procedural measures this very compact, this constitution, has to offer upon amendments. This KELO, advances itself forward as if it has gone completely unnoticed by some of these parties that have in all actualities, parlayed upon it, in their disregarding's of the very compact that they are compelled to be just as adherent to as are all the rest, as if there is to be found no damage to themselves or others upon these unconstitutional, procedural neglects, that they have so committed.

Our peoples national constitution is not an offering of goods and services supplied for sale at the cost of our peoples amendments, and our constitution was not proved to be amendable so that singular governments may claim upon themselves what it is that they say our peoples enumerated rights are not, and these amendments are not the granting’s of power, that might amount to something, only if they are redesigned as partible articles that can be claimed by kings to be partially available for our public use, rather our peoples constitution contains the principled terms of the people, by which our governments were to adhere, and it is the people, who have all the authority necessary to tell these governments what our rights are through our amendments, that are not to be unsanctioned and then lively refitted, minus our people, this is found to be exceptionally true regarding our first ten amendments that are of our United States constitution, for it was the people of these very states who were delegated to present our views upon these matters, and it was upon our peoples definitive influences that they were dutifully ratified by the representative legislators of the people. These amendments were not worded as grants of authority, to be used against the people, and these amendments were not excepted as probationary conditions upon any of our governments, and these governments were not assigned separate stations in these regards to the particular purposes of these amendments, that are of this supreme foundational legal document of “ WE THE PEOPLE.” As if these words were only an abstract mental condition served up to placate our people, so as to organize governments hierarchy to the exclusions of our peoples rights to limit the actions of their governments.


The first ten amendments that were solemnly ratified upon this union, that did not suppose the exclusions of our people, as they were agreed to be submitted by the delegates of the people, to the first congress, and as they were made upon the will of our people for one nation indivisible, and as they were presented and duly ratified as inseparable from our peoples national constitution, and as they were presented by the consenting consciences of the people to be excepted, not by force, but upon the free will of our states, to agree or not to agree to these words of the people, they then were not made to be divided up among there own parts for our governments use, and they were not then conditioned to be legislatively rethought as subdivided parts to the use of these individual governments or otherwise upon any superimposed kingly authority, as is upheld within this KELO encroachment, as if it is supposed that this judicial power alone gives it all the authorized authorities necessary to overpower our peoples very own words.

These first ten amendments became indivisibly, our peoples American constitution as is, “We the People”, they were not then proposed nor were they then ratified as add-ons or supplementals and they were not then submitted to a constitution, of We the States proclaim, or We the federal Legislators produced, or We the Supreme court demand, in any legal disengagements of our peoples words, therefor the people cannot be disenfranchised from them without also being removed from their entire national constitution, illegally.

"Men of factious tempers... or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means,first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people"-James Madison made in The Federalist, No. 10.

States Divided History Returned

The supreme court has no constitutional right of authority to remove any of our peoples from their portion of the 5th amendment, when this has not been so granted by the people, and if the people are to remain vested in their own constitutional words, they must reject this removal of their words “public use.” and must deny their governments the use of this" KELO" for the allowance of those governments to superimpose legislation over the words of the people, our people must not relinquished their own supreme foundational legal document, that was derived from the will of the people, for their use, over all governmental agencies so inclined to the use of such thievery.

The supreme court has reasoned for now, most correctly, that if the people found that their individual rights to private property would not be protected by their words, that they had inclined, that they would regretfully recur to an alternative. This KELO construction had been purposely reasoned to this effect, that has for now succeeded, however just as the British King had for so long reasoned his success upon the illegal chains of tyranny, this to, upon the due course of an oppressed people, shall surely fail.

This supreme court kingly configurations, minded to the tormenting’s of our peoples history and this United States constitution, must be rejected through the proper procedures that are constructed within our constitution, for this constitution to remain of any viable considerations to any and all of these essential parties of this very compact, and for this nation to remain united, these issues of property rights, if found to be as yet undecided, must be found to be so, not by the kingly rights of others, but upon the supreme rights of the whole people to revisit these issues of their rightful public use.

The supreme court has removed our peoples own proclamations, upon what we ourselves have enumerated, they have now rejected, our peoples rights to demand the ways of our freedom, from the ways and means of governments abusive encroachments. By persistently tormenting our peoples constitutions, this supreme court, upon their pernicious conduct, has torn asunder all of the constitutional confidences of our people, who have for so long now shown such a great tenacity ever persistent to the preservation’s of those rights and liberties that they had received, secured upon themselves through their very own words.

Many British judges existed and judicial law had exerted itself long before any constitutions of “We the people” were ever written, however, when it was deemed necessary that our peoples constitutions must be over and above our governments, this also included it’s judiciary. Our peoples amendments were not written so that judges could now claim to be the originators of our valued authorship. These pompously intrusive and erosional infringements of this affronting supreme court are absolutely constitutionally unacceptable.

Through the passage of time, there has been the changing of its personnel, however, this is the very same supreme court that through its own -shameless predilections, had helped advanced this very nation toward the forced military rejection of secession that cost well over 600,000 American lives, and then this kingly agency kept our people divided for as long as their powers successfully promoted it, in their reprehensible placement of as many American citizens to the back of the bus as its progressions saw it fit to harass, and now that they have repositioned this nation to revolt upon itself, and tho they may have justified this among themselves, they will never, once again, justify the coming results that they have themselves promoted so unremorseful.

The KELO Amendment

(Revised Aug 24/2008)
Our peoples United States Constitution was not born upon the perfunctory politeness of our governments, nor was it elaborated upon by the superficial inspections of the people, nor was it created upon the very correctness of our governments, or even upon the self supposed disciplines that one judge may have claimed over another, against us. Let these ten amendments now be redefined by our very own governments, and then tell me once more again, who it is, that will now hold the supreme powers of those amendments, over our people, and all of our once self demanded freedoms. Our peoples amendments were never presented as confused passages, that could be after so long reinterpreted by those who can now proclaim that at any given moment they may have merely lost their place on this page of their convenience, nor were they presented with a blank area were they can now write their names in those spaces provided.

The great statesmen of this nation who had signed our Declaration of Independence were those men of the most admired public attentions and those of many prominent properties who had risked all that they had achieved and all that they might have, for the liberty of this nation, However it must never again be forgotten that many a patriot man and women who fought for this outstanding patriots declaration of independence, were those who were of a much more common stature. These commoners and farmers of this new land of independence had now found that they had been financially destroyed and that their sacrifices had been quickly forgotten after this revolution, as the takings and the reneging’s of their properties became a pervasive attitude of the state. It was and always has been the common American who enforces the call for freedom and this eventual realization is what had produced the words of our people in and of our American constitution, as they were stated, and as they were meant, for our public use, to ward off these well publicized governmental abuses that were being conveniently disregarded by our governments that had once held all supreme power over the very titles of our rights and those granting’s of them.
The security of our people in and of our national constitution lies completely in the valid authorship of our first ten amendments, tho they differ in material points from each other, they all had to be equally valid upon the whole constitution of the people, one amendment may have refined a portion of another or that of its whole, but not one of these amendments could have redefined the entirety of our peoples portion of this united contract, and still have remained an assemblage of its peoples construction, for this would have introduce a single entity that would have been unruliest and insubordinate of “We the People” and in fact then this singular amendment would have become a self commandment upon its very own rights to overpower and infringe upon all the other constitutional constructions of the people.

For example: if the 5th amendment had said... nor shall private property be taken for any use, as these governments of the people do determine it improper, without just compensation.

This illustration above is meant to convey thru its very example, the astounding inappropriateness of these fraudulently interjected words, that have replaced the words of our people, for the pernicious appropriations of all governments, over our peoples property. Our amendments are our peoples property, they were not entrusted to us, they were demanded by us, therefore they cannot be constitutionally handed over to any governments so that they may be used against us. This -KELO , is a reprehensible misplacement of our peoples demands and is in fact an unconstitutional endorsement of the reconditioning's of all the commanding structures of our peoples constitution.

This KELO, is conjectured upon all impropriety and is the most convoluted and violent reconstruction of our peoples amendments that has ever been preformed, and this will most assuredly be of its very kind and continued nature repeated, by the progressive takings of our property possession hungry governments, that are found to be now self justified by the supreme court, in what they claim are these governments constitutional property rights, patterned upon this very KELO directive that has desecrated our peoples portion of this constitution.
Where in all this land can you find a constitution of “We the People” that might be found truly protective of the people merely by the promised words of government. There was no true national constitution of “We the People” before the Articles of Confederation were placed as unequal to the Articles of our people.

Only, If a state constitution can truly proclaim itself to be a true constitution of their people and not that of their governments can it claim to stand along side this national constitution of the people, for it had already been decided that a governments constitution is not the same thing as a peoples constitution.

The question of whether or not these legislators of our thirteen States had thought it might be possible to muster that necessary support of the people in their States, to back them up in their rejections of any of these first 10 amendments, let alone this very one we call our fifth, dose not then put into question this very fact that they did not then attempt to do this, and this dose not then release these States from this very well known truth, that these States were not then those absolute masters of this debate, even though they had these many consummate skills available to them in this art, of such propaganda, as it cannot also be misplaced, that they had all these necessary tools then available, to open any pandoras box, of their very own choosing.

It was very well established at this time of amendment ratification,
that upon a minority negative, if presented as is indelibly prescribed by our constitutional procedures, that these state legislators could have very well had it their own way, all that would have remained for them to do, would have been to suppress their people from the success of an all out revolt that would have most certainly been found to be of a united purpose, against them. This historical evidence of State submission, to the will of their people to preemptively restrain their governments, concludes itself upon each and every article unanimous ratified.

Has it ever been proven correctly Constitutional that these procedures, and these rights of these many states to potentially ply for additional amendments, are to be forgone, not by those actions of the people, but upon those peremptory actions of this supreme court.

"The present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments."-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788

State Constitutions

The Supreme Court in capitalizing upon what they think is their Kingly Rights of Constitutional Purging power, and having improperly interpreted our Peoples National Constitution so as to justify their pretentious right to disembowel our very own Peoples fifth amendment from we the people, they then Proceeded forward upon their dastardly task of rewriting it into the most incomplete, incomprehensible, and incoherent understandings, of one of our peoples most fundamental protections that has ever existed.

As of 08/22/05 the private property owners of New London, Conn, have lost their petition before the Supreme Court to rehear and remand their decision of KELO. If our representatives, and our executive branch had spoken with one voice to the indispensable necessity of our understandings of what a nation of free people of real property really is, our United States Constitution in substance and objective reality might still exist, but this did not happen, and now the dogs of tyranny have been let loose, and have no doubt in this, our disenfranchised posterity will question this generations integrity and foresight for a long, long time to come.

State Constitutions have a very fluid quality in comparison to our peoples Constitution, with an average of approximately 100 amendments to the constitutions of the fifty states, also some states have rewritten their state constitutions up to as many as eleven times. State constitutions tend to be extremely long and complicated.

Some state constitutions are also susceptible to improper influences because in some states supreme courts are not require to reveal how the justices voted to accept or reject a petition for appeal and in some states Supreme Court Judges are subject to elections this means they campaign on issues to acquire large amounts of money from lawyers, special interest groups and future litigants to finance their bids for election. One state constitution has over 600 amendments 70% of which are applicable only in the localities that ratified them in popular elections.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am all for state legislative sovereignties and states rights, but this issue of We The People to be secure in our homes is at the very foundations of all of our protections and restrictions we the people placed within our National Constitution, and should always be as amended, upon public use. This is of such importance to the freedoms of our people as to warrant unequaled reverence to the supreme law of this land, our American Constitution.

"there is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several states, the Declaration of Rights in the separate states are no security." - George Mason

I have found no where in my research of our founding fathers, any suggestion ever taken seriously that would claim that a democracy maintained could ever protect every person against public use, while at the same time I have found no reference in our national constitution or any current state constitutions to that of private takings of citizens over citizens to be a freedom granted by our governments over the words of our people, an acceptable liberty. JMB

Grab your Ancillary

Why are the words"public use" in state constitutions, was this a self imposed limitation created by the state legislators as they were acting within their corporate capacity, or was this a precaution from possible government abuse that was resolved upon the will of the people. Dose "KELO" override all state constitutions, and if so, how has this been accomplished.


Can all state constitutional amendments in property be misinterpreted, and who has been given this right to misinterpret the words of the people. Were the state constitutional amendments submitted to the federal supreme court, when they were thought to have been ratified by the people, and where was this supreme court when the people had to decide this issue, is it not the right of the people to confirm what they have said.
Are state constitutions the constitutions of the state legislators, or of the people in that state, and are the people equal in their holdings of amendments, or unequal, or are they now simply the only beholders of a nonexistent claim.

Do states that have strong constitutional property amendments, really need to have legislative bills proposed to protect what is demanded, has this right to our own property now become to adventurous a thing for the people to have claimed, over government, and if this is not reasoned by the people, to be the very case, why has this not been pointed out by our state legislators, would not this absence of true representation, be in violation of their oath of office to protect the words of their people and those meanings held within their state constitutions, if there are proposals that are to claim this to be otherwise.

If legislation in the states is now to be, the only protection of the people, in their properties, dose this not admit to the meaningless words of the people, and dose this not now divest and devoice the people from what they had to say and from the affects of what they had demanded.
Are these actions, in state legislative protections designed to cause the people to forget that they had demanded their own protections from that very state or federal government that has now stepped up to protect them from the oppressive actions, only they themselves can commit.
Are the people of the states, now only to depend upon what has proven so often to be the unreliable currents of legislation.

Have any state constitutional property amendments been changed since KELO, and if so, who made these changes, was it done by the people of that state, in conventions, or by the peoples majority vote, or was this done upon the acts of the state legislators alone, and dose now, the successful ratification of a proposed amendment, overreach the understandings of the people, or override the very cause that they had to vote, upon that amendment.

Are state legislation’s, in property, a double protection for what the people had said in their state constitutions can not be violated, or are they in actuality, statements, that what the people had said can be violated, but what we the legislators now say, can not be, and what if the state supreme judiciary was to claim this will not be so, and if they do, from what powers of authority do those state judges now speak, do they now look to our state legislators constitutions for their powers, or to their own grants of power, or do they now look upon the powerful grants supplied in the KELO, by their foreign fathers, the United States Supreme court, which has proven to be no less inclined to a federal empire then they are to themselves, wielding that power, that has now proven to be so unconnected to the words of a united people, to now override what these state legislators have said. Now that what the people have said has become so insignificant. Are now the people in one state of our nation to be held as if they are free in their properties, while in another they are to be held as if slaves from their rights to properties.

How is it to be now, you segregated sheep, that your freedoms from oppression remain so self evident, upon such a divided nation as this, as you are now to allow others, upon their pleasures, to refine.

"The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time, perhaps, more necessary than at present."-MADISON'S REPORT ON THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS.

Trusting our Elected (Allowed to confiscate)

Senate Fails to Pass Eminent Domain Reform

Well, - So much for the federal private property protection act of 2005, which was supposed to deny, for two fiscal years, economic development funds, granted to our states and local governments, that might be used for eminent domain in private commercial development.
This bill would have also prohibited the federal government from using eminent domain for private development.
This bill was reassigned S.3873 in the Senate, to bypass a Judiciary Committee hold-up and was introduced by Senator James Inhofe.
This bill, is identical to HR.4128.
This bill, 4128, passed the house by an historic 376-38 vote,- then it sat in the Senate Judiciary committee, because the Senate majority leader, Bill First, refused it’s agenda, to the Senate,thus effectively prohibited a vote in the Senate.
Should the American People expect any more or less when they are so willing to surrender their words, for the words of their elected?

"Finally, in a coda, the Court suggests that property owners should turn to the States, who may or may not choose to impose appropriate limits on economic development takings."
"This is an abdication of our responsibility. States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them." - justice. O’Connor

"I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion."-Justice Thomas

When your elected officials mismanage your government assets and revenues, they cannot be allowed to solve the problems that they've created, by seizing your land for so-called economic development.

H.R,4128. In regards to the Supreme Court decision in Kelo

The mere fact that our United States Constitution exists, not only gives the legal right, but it also demands that our federal representatives and state legislators; petition against and specifically to any violation and to any violators of our United States Constitution, that are to be considered of the most grievous in nature by the overwhelming majority of the American people, and by our elected officials themselves, and so professed by their own admittance.

Our representatives have already gone on record as stating that this is the case, ie: H.R, 4128. in regards to the supreme court’s decision in kelo, and of the gravity in consequence and of the grievousness in nature of the constitutional violations held within. These elected servants of the peoples government need to be held to account and asked why they only petition unto themselves and the American people, and not so to the violators directly.

If the continental congress had only to petition on to themselves and the American people, in regards to their dissent, and to the dissent of the American people, in the grievous natures of British oppressive rule, and not to the British themselves, this country would never have ratified its National Constitution, that was understood to be the shield of freedom and liberty for a whole new nation of free people.

The once powerful words of the people, demanded by the people and placed before all the people of government is now becoming the powerful words of the government, for the government, and by the government.
This struggle for control of the people has reached its plutocracy, in total disregard of the Peoples Constitution.

Following are statements and wordings to be found in H.R.4128 and my replies.
The purpose of H.R. 4128, the `Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005,' is to preserve the property rights granted to our Nation's citizens under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution following the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
( Purpose of evasion, of oath, is more appropriate )

This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of private property rights, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.
( Maximum extent? So construed? )

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the policy of the United States to encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property and to ensure that the constitutional and other legal rights of private property owners are protected by the Federal Government.
(Protected by the fed? And not our people’s constitution)

private property should never be taken for the private benefit of another private person. There can be no more fundamental meaning of the `public use' clause of the Fifth Amendment
(But is any public purpose now ok? such as higher tax revenue.)

The Supreme Court's efforts to define `public use,' and Congress' legislative efforts to do so, are at the heart of this debate.
( Redesign and redetermine, is more like it! )

H.R. 4128 also includes an express private right of action to make certain that those suffering injuries from a violation of the bill will be allowed access to State or Federal court to enforce its provisions.
( Bless you congress for allowing the American people the right to do, what most can not afford, and what was once not so required to be addressed without the guiding words of our Peoples constitution. )
(Access to courts? that no longer recognize, our People’s constitution.)
( violating a bill from congress, is now considered to be more grievous an act, then the act of violating the Peoples constitution. )

H.R. 4128 includes carefully crafted refinements of the definition of economic development that specifically allow the types of takings that prior to the Kelo decision had achieved a consensus as to their appropriateness.

(The appropriateness of the Peoples constitution has now become, of the general agreement of government, in their words, and not of the appropriate words of the Peopls.)

( Great! Propose a bill, that present no dissenting case, directly to the violators of our People’s constitution, thereby confederating the powers of all government over property. )


Maybe our federal and state legislators, and other government officials should forget taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and now swear allegiance in oath to the individual states and their majority or factional rule, exclusively, or to themselves respectively.

Congress, the Senate and our Executive branch are passionately, on record, in works and word, ( H.R. 4128 and by Presidential Executive Order. As believing, that kelo, is in violation, of the Peoples Constitution.

As if they were innocent and unaccountable witnesses to the calamity of the People, they proclaim, as they stand idly by, but as witnessers they are not so innocent, for they are now in the busyness of collecting their cooperated bounties.

It should be brought to, the most curious concerns of the People, The lack of mentioning by the supreme court, that their new interpretations of public use, to now mean any use, also relieves the federal government from the 5th amendment as well as it dose so, to the states, and that even presidential Executive orders have there term limits, but the Executive powers of our People, in our national constitution, was never minded to be so limited or exhaustible.

Freedom in property (Aug 2007)

If freedom of speech and religion was to be handed off to the inclinations of our elected officials, the way our freedom in property is now, we would no longer speak nor pray in security, but is now our security only to be in prayer and speech and not in our secure homes and our places of worship? Our freedom in property was never measured to be merchantable by others, in our Peoples Constitution, nor proposed to be dependent of what we must now speak, for the People had as if a great wheel connected, once spoke.
Is it now to be the words of our elected, that protects our property, and not the words of the People?
Is it now to be the segregated acts of a divided People, so devotedly subjected to double talk and conniving ways, that will save us from this seedy see-saw?
Are We the People now to be placed as if children upon the playgrounds of our elected? where sometimes we are allowed recess and sometimes not.
Or is it believed now that a People in so frustrated a condition, and so wirily lured, will always be heard and not so cutout from the herd as if a sickly heifer, and their cries then be so deferred.
Or is it now supposed that all the divided children of our nation will have the strength to now teach the teacher what was once taught United?

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."-Thomas Jefferson

"If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights"-James Madison

The Winds have changed

My, how times have changed! Now instead of our United States Constitution securing certain inalienable rights, immunities and liberties from governmental suppression, to the people of the (United) States. It now conditions those immunities liberties and inalienable rights on to the State governments, so declares the federal supreme court.

Now the States are held to be immune from the peoples National Constitution. Now it is the States that are to be at liberty. Now it is the States that are to be granted the right to be alienable from a United peoples constitution. Now it is the States that will decide who it will alienate and who it will not. Now it is the individual State constitutions, that will or will not protect. For now it is the States that will police its peoples into the servitude of their labors ! Was it the federal government that took away the States power to place in servitude its people after the civil war or was it the people? Is it now to be the federal government that grants the States the power to decide what was once decided by a United people in amendment. Is it now the right of the people to oppress its own people, a right once rejected by the people. Every elected official now in this nation stands at the ready to preform the will of the people against the people! We are now a people divided, as if cut in half by our own plowshare.

Even Patrick Henry had to admit to the despotic inclinations of his state legislators. And his fears of a federal government under a National Constitution that granted so much power to federalism, was never as fearsome in the peoples reasoning’s as a nation of individually unrestrained states, for it was the peoples United States Constitution that was designed to restrain the despotic inclines of (all) oppressive governments.

This struggle between encroachment and sovereignty has been most aggravated by an over zealous United States supreme court that refuses to adjudicate United States law under the supreme law of this land, our United States Constitution. and now they themselves have encroached upon the sovereign words of our people.
Thievery now is the order of the day! and partition is the order of the night! Who will now be left so undivided as to continue our fight for the liberty of freedom?

" Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. Once one accepts, as the Court at least nominally does, ante, at 6, that the Public Use Clause is a limit on the eminent domain power of the Federal Government and the States, there is no justification for the almost complete deference it grants to legislatures as to what satisfies it."
Justice Thomas

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -
Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774

"because there are powers exercised by most other governments, which, in the United States, are withheld by the people both from the general government and from the state governments. Of this sort are many of the powers prohibited by the declarations of rights prefixed to the constitutions, or by the clauses, in the constitutions, in the nature of such declarations."-JAMES MADISON'S Report on THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS.

Supreme Court Predilections

When supreme court judges make rulings of their own predilections, whether to the right or to the left of the American peoples constitution, they miss the mark.

The United States constitution belongs at the center of our Republic and is not to be considered an afterthought when deciding United States law that affects the whole of the American people. The supreme court has for to long incorporated unexplained statements and assertions with which they are allowed justification. These achievements in self justification are gratified not only in their majority rulings but also in their minority dissensions. These aspirant derivatives must no longer be accepted by the American people if this country is to maintain its constitutional republic for which our United States constitution stands. When our peoples constitution is to be considered a document that is to be amended by the supreme court and not by the American people, the separation of the people from all their constitutions is complete.

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court ...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."-Abraham Lincoln

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."-George Washington

An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it."-Justice Samuel Chase-declared in Calder v. Bull (1798)

I'm in the process of enumerating several violations of our constitution, that have been committed by our supreme court, and in this endeavor I am to be afforded no disparities in dispatch and time and truth are not to be of my own predilections. Therefor, I have rottenly reserved to myself the unforgiving necessities of patience that is demanded by the inherent importance and seriousness of the issues. JMB

Social Compact

The forced sale of ones-property to another, in consequence, places that owner, and any labors that he may have placed onto that property, toward the involuntary servitude of the other, and onto the community that forced the sale. The community that allowed the buying of that property, before its decided retaking of that property, was well compensated for that property in an agreement of social compact, and of contract, that did not include any known or written clause, to the taking of that property fore the purposed sale of that property to another. Therefore that community is now in violation of that contract and of the agreed to social compact so subscribed to, and ratified in, words and deed, and has become as if a singular monarchy, to the exclusions, of all fee men. The buyer of said property; did not, then agree to be positioned as if a whore, to have his labored pleasures presented, as to the pleasures of the highest bidder.

Trusting the welfare of our property, to be in the hands of our elected, is a fantastic folly. For how are we to subdue their pleasures? When their nefarious ingenuity and divisive methods of property taking are to be so formidable. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. But the surrender of our property to others for their pleasures, of our labors, is not an inclusion into society, rather it is an exclusion from society. A man enters into a society to preserve his property, this is one of the ends he prepossess to himself when he enters that society, and that American society shall not be relieved of that mans United States constitution no matter where in this Nation he causes to live and build for himself and his posterity. The right of our people to the fruits of our own labors is a right that can not be separated from our national constitution, for where else in this nation is there a constitution of We the People of the United States of America. When the words of our people become as if they are the property of judges, our rights of religion and speech no longer matter any more then what was once considered our property. All communities have an essential interest in the protections of their individual citizens constitutional rights, lest we all become pawns, to the collective, to be placed as if beans in a jar. The common good that a man dose for his community and his nation should not be judged by the good of others, for we all contribute, with our own abilities.
The burden of property and personal protection is placed upon that community at large when a man enters and is excepted into that community. The contract then becomes I will abide by your laws and I will contribute to our union and you will protect me for your benefit and mine. But no contract in this Nation should ever overrule the words of the people, placed their by our people, in our National Constitution for the sake of our country and its union.
When a man invests himself into a community and a community invests in him, it then becomes a mutual investment. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours, but now we shall share what is ours for the mutual pleasures and security of us all, and not for one man over the other, and not at the expense of our own honored words.

Government exists to protect rather than transfer or redistribute property. Society surrenders its freedom when it fails to respect the personal dignity of its members. This land is my land, this land is your land, dose not mean, my land is now your land for the taking. Our right to be secure in property has been reduced to such an extent, that our remaining liberties are of little value. Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property.

If the elected officials of our local government are driven by the views of private interests and ambitions, in the taking of property, how is the welfare and happiness of the people, in our nation to be the result. The insatiable thirst for control over a fellows property is inherent in faction, and must never be sanctioned, if this is to be a Nation of the Free. The forced servitude of a persons labors in property are considerations that should not belong in the hands of our elected.

"The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits."-Thomas Jefferson

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of" -Thomas Jefferson

Property and Government

THE KELO EFFECT

America the free has been replaced by America the efficient. Now that all the labors of all its citizens are to be subjected to our elected officials and to our individual states and to that of private corporations.

Just think how economically inefficient it must have been for those slave holders to pay for the medical upkeep of their slaves of labor, and the inhabiting cost overruns of having to provide food and shelter for them. But now all is well in America, for the supreme court has adjudicated all of our labors to others. Just think how much more efficient this new concept of slave labor really is, for now no longer do men of prestige or position have to pay for the personal expenditures that are to be incurred with the actual ownership of those they wish to place in their servitude. No! For now all they have to do is show a little patience, and the intended victim will do all their work for them in a completely self reliant and cost effective manner.

Now under this new Kelo plan, no race of men will be off-limits. Now with this new scheme, all that will be required is just enough time for a person of intrest, to place his lifes savings, his hopes and dreams into the land he thinks is his own. The bate is well placed and the trap is now set and what was his is now yours! Congratulation, the true meaning of our liberty and not theirs is at hand!
If our property is to be surrendered to others, it will make no deference by which ever authority it is done.

"When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."- Justice Thomas

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."-Justice O’Connor

Prerogatives of our Supreme Court

When the supreme court removes limits on our government, placed in amendment by our people, it owes the American people a comprehensive and thorough explanation as to why they did so, and as to why they believe they have the right to remove what the people had authored. It must be understood that when a limit of infringement is removed from our constitution, an explanation and an accounting of the highest magnitude and of the greatest intensity in determinant description is in order. How else are the American people to judge the judgments of our judges. Or have the prerogatives of our supreme court become such that no satisfactory explanations are to be afforded. The American people understood the prerogative judgements of the British king and his parliament and rejected their premises as preposterous. The American peoples understandings of the oppressive inclinations of kings would sourly surprise these self supposed supreme rulers of judgment if they were to attempt an attentive self justification before our peoples constitution.


When the supreme court gives judgement concerning a legal case that affects the whole of the American people upon their national constitution, the American people must demand it be resolved first and foremost, with the full constitutional integrity, of WE the People, and all it's considered constitutional effects upon our people, and upon our words, and not with the alternative resolutions of these revolutionary revelators who now judge their words to be above ours. for it is we the people who first set our claim upon the very conditions and structure of our united constitution, and from this very beginning, our people must not be disenfranchised.

The capacity of the American people to engage in intelligent thought and reasoning is attested to by the very fact that this is the most free nation in the world. The very fact that the American people have intrusted the supreme court to interpret our constitution dose not give the supreme court the right to submit to the American people inadequate exsuberations of their rulings nor dose it expunge the rights and obligations of the American people to defend their freedom. The supreme court must be made to yield their reasoning, to the superior force of the American peoples constitution, and if those justifications are not to be found in pursuance of our constitution, then the American people must demand that their governments request a redress. The employment of extraordinary efforts of evasion implemented by the supreme court in the kelo decision must not be allowed to violate the agreed to contract between the American people and their government. The importance of these words, of the people, for the people, must not be judged to be extrinsic, and the avoidance of this very interpretation must no longer be tolerated. The true integrity and soundness of this very construction, of We the People, and not it’s reconstruction, must be demanded by the American people, upon their words, and not the words of the supreme court, or we the people now become, we the people of this court.
The indeterminate design and unsatisfactory explanation placed before the American people in the Kelo decision is absolutely unacceptable. It has become the opinion of the Supreme Court that the peoples written constitution is but an antiquated document of disrepute and is subject to all the degenerative rulings of their own past precedents and not of the supportive conclusions of a people determined to break away from the tyrannical rule of all unjust and oppressive governments foreign and domestic.

The very issues that limited aggressive governmental intrusions upon its people and that were decided before the continental congress in the formation of our republic and the writing of our constitution are the very same issues that freed this country and its people and should never be revisited without the full reverence in its reference due the people.

This supreme court is no longer principled by the peoples constitution of the United States of America and is in no way remotely influenced by our deceleration of independence. Our national constitution embodies the fundamental principles of the revolution that gave us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and our peoples freedoms in property was the major theme. What was unconsidered and unrealized in the kelo decision was our United States Constitution, no ifs ands or butts about it! When the American people ratified our constitution they gave berth to the constitutionally subordinate republic we now call the United States of America. It is now the decision of our supreme court that our state governments are no longer to be obliged in guarded submission to our national constitution and to its imposements of legally agreed to and willfully accepted unities of contract so subscibed and ratified. Yes people it is our deceleration and it is our independence and it is our freedom that is under attack. Long live the king’s of counsel and God help the American people!

"The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous result."-Justice Thomas

Gainsay of the Kingly Serpents

With the ever so purposeful pace of tortuous and with the gainsay of a forked tongue serpent our United States Constitution has been laid to siege, compelling a once free people to subordinate their United States Constitution over to United States law or singular state law, that is enacted by legislators in the hopes that when brought before our judicial courts in dissension.

The courts will determine the constitutional legality of that law without actual deference to the intentions and purpose of our constitution. The full scope of our constitution and the whole of the peoples freedoms from oppression demanded in our Peoples Constitution is no longer deserving of full judicial debate, rather it has become the debate of the debaters who won the last debate.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."-James Madison

Ping Pong

This country has taken a dreadfully wrong turn in the guardianship of its own freedoms.There are now so many ways in which states will be allowed to abuse the rights and liberties of its citizens in property, and so many ways for state legislators to profess and proclaim inadequate and insufficient means of protecting our fundamental and subsequently enumerated rights in property ownership as to confuse, perplex and bewilder the American people to such a degree that they will not be able to discern whether they are coming or going or just being made to pack up and leave! And the right to be secure in home ownership has now been given up to the ultimate state lottery, pick a number and hope the next little white ping pong ball inline has the other guys numerals.

"If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not free." -Pol Anderson

Damnation

Freedom of speech? Why in all Condemnation should I give two pennies, about the right to squeal like a pig, as I am to be lead from my pen? Freedom to speak my mind? So others can profess their sympathies as they stand by and watch? Freedom of expression? Am I to be grateful for the right to express my unfortunate circumstances in some artistic way, so that I might please my fellow Americans insatiable thirst for visual dramatics? Is it my right to be heard Or my right to be part of the herd that will please my handlers, and those who have yet to be handled. Freedom to voice my opinion, When the opinion of five supreme court rulers is that I have no opinion. Freedom of representation, by those who seem to have only self interest on their minds. Freedom, Liberty and Justice for all. Except for me? Private property is not the gateway to freedom. It is freedom! And the right to freedom belongs in our peoples constitution and was not to be left to the indiscretions of our states or our federal government.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist"-John Adams

What Matters In Mind

Ownership of property gives no more right to suffrage then not, but those who have properties in land and those who design to achieve it were to be protected in our peoples constitution as well as those who don’t and will not, and to take away the right of security in ownership of real property or even the thought to acquire in security the same, is as intrusive on the minds and persons of man, as it is oppressive on man’s possessions in mind, for to place mind over matter is to dispose of what matters in mind. Is not freedom of the press a matter of persons in mind, And is not the placements of the presses to be a matter to mind, And is not the securities of freedom of speech, and liberty, also reliant upon places of security from whence to speak your mind, How is it that freedom of speech is to be given more refuge and relevancy in our nationally constitutionalized bill of rights then the freedom and security of one of the most prized possession in liberty and opportunity, our homes, our sanctuaries.

Are we now only to be secure in the possessions we are to carry on our persons; And does not the removal of this enumerated right to be secure in one’s home divide this country and its people, Are now our separate states to be allowed to decide the treatments of our liberties in property with deference, or others with indifference, And did not the abhorrent days of slavery in some states, and in some not, divide this country and its people, And will not this new form of servitude, oppression and enslavement of our labors divide us as well.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights." -Lincoln, Abraham

1776 America

In 1776, Americans secured their freedoms in one of the most extraordinarily unforeseeable outcomes of human struggle that had ever been fought against the iron fists of an overpowering tyrannical rule.

Every American back in those days who even dared to contemplate thoughts of freedom, liberty, and justice for all, did so with great peril to themselves and their loved ones. But once victory was achieved the people of America united in celebration and resolution and they promised themselves that never again would an authoritarian government be allowed to exert upon their labors such oppression, be it of a foreign origin or of one that might advance itself as a thief in the night within its own newly formed republic.

But now all bets are off, for the security of our properties, our lands, and our labors have been seized and handed off to our elected officials, the ones that acquire positions of power though majority vote.

Most of the thirteen states at the time of the adoption of our national constitution had their own sovereign constitutions. So ask yourselves this. Why did the continental congress address property rights at all? and why did the delegates of the People petition the continental congress in regards to a bill of rights and its afforded protections in property? When all had their own sovereign forms of property protections, and most, had their own separate and sovereign constitutions. It was because the American people had endured for far to long the insufferable insecurities found crowded upon a government inclined to the violations of their properties, and they knew all to well that the protections of their private properties, and their new republic, needed to be of a united purpose and should not be forever left to the separate reasoning strength of divided states.

The Peoples Constitution was designed, understood and ratified to be the ultimate principle of standard in the protections of the people, not just from the thief in the night that might steal away the rights of the people in the form of an authoritarian federal government but also from the thief in the night that might hijack our states singular and divided constitutions and place our elected officials in positions of enabled oppressive rule.

This thief in the night has now been identified! It is the supreme court of the United States of America, for they have stolen the words of our people (public use) and handed them over to others as to mean, for (their use) and until this thief of the night is caught, and unless our former possessions of personal freedoms from servitude are recovered and replaced to their proper and formally secure origins of antiquity and yet forever relevant understandings of a truly free people, and unless the American people arrest and subdue this thief in the night soon! Our rights in property ownership and the good will intended for our posterity will be forever auctioned upon the highest bidder, and the chances of recovery for us and our union, for our posterity, will be lost forever!

"I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property. -Thomas Paine

Congress Strikes Out!

Congress steps up to (Home) plate, H.R.>.4128, And strikes out! Public use still means any purpose, private or otherwise! As is according to the Supreme Court, in KELO. and now Congress proclaims, that not giving federal transportation money to states and local municipalities who steal private property, is the best they can do to protect and defend the United States Constitution and our American peoples own words, our Bill of Rights , and in deciding so they offhandedly justify and quantify the five supreme court rulers who gave a decree(an official order that has the force of law) that all state and local governments are now free to take our lands and properties without regard to the supreme law of this land, our peoples constitution. It is often supposed that congress cannot overrule a supreme court ruling. But in what way dose this contestable debate override the very words of our people, and what is it that prevented congress from filing a friend of the court brief with a federal repeals court or the supreme court itself, in defense of our peoples-5th amendment.

Does Congress not have a vested interest in this issue, or have they just forgotten their oath of office? The case for our peoples constitution should have been and should still be made. If the Continental Congress had acted in such manners when it represented the American people in their opposition to the oppressive and tyrannical servitude imposed by the British government, America and its people would never have realized their freedom and would never have been able to form a federal republic or write their national constitution, that was intended and designed to protect its people from all enemies foreign and domestic.

90 members of Congress on november, 8, 2005 felt it proper to file a friend-of-the-court brief with a federal appeals court declaring support for the U..S. Defense Department in its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America’s national jamboree. If this is a proper avenue of objection I support it wholeheartedly. My questions are, Why did not at lest as many of our representatives find it as important to do the same in regards to the kelo case as it progressed through our court system? Is not congress to be held in shameful failure to fulfill their obligations in regards to the rights of the American citizens they were elected to represent?

Federal Republic

The purpose of our United States Constitution was not meant to assure us that what the majority wants is what the majority gets, and the difference between a Federal Republic under contract of all the people; by the people, and for the people, and a democracy under mob rule, is just that, and for the Supreme Court to dispose of our constitution, in regards to our private property, and hand over the restrictions placed in our Peoples Constitution, to the determinations of our states and local legislators, is to change our government from a Federal Republic, to a pure democracy.

So now if the majority in your community believes they can make better financial use of your property, they can! This ruling also stands for the minority, for if a minority faction has the backing in monies or influence, as to dispatch elected officials who are now no longer to be guided by our Peoples constitution, in property taking for public use, and instead are granted public benefits in private takings, the ending results are the same, a People divided upon little ruling monarchies of oppression.

I thought that altering our constitution could only be done by "We the People" in the form of amendments to our National Constitution. Our National constitution under any other hypothesis, becomes a mere ball of clay by which government above it's people may change it’s form.

The oppressive inclinations of men have now reformed their unjust applications upon our people, and upon their absolute design, we are now caught as if we were endowed with pointed snouts, small ears and slender hairless tails, despite in fact, that our United States constitution the compact of our Peoples Union and the object of our States submissions upon the words of our People for the formation of a constitutionally subordinate federal republic, did once function purposely to release us from the very same liberties inclined to that of inhumane governmental tyrants. The very purpose of the Bill of Rights of We the People, has now been rejected by that very same government, these rights were enumerated by our people to inhibit.

"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right,it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution and certainly would if such a rights were a vital one." - Abraham Lincoln

Our National Constitution according to the supreme court still guarantees us freedom of speech, but no longer the freedom to be secure in the ownership of our homes. Is this freedom of speech to be allowed so that the oppressive supreme court rulers can revel in the pathetic winning and complaining of its subjects.

This article is written in regards to...
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al."
certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut
No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005.

Ponderosa

Public use now means Private purpose.What a fabulous concept, just think of the possibilities and the new opportunities for litigation in our States and local municipalities, the new found case loads for the state supreme courts, the unlimited podiums for our blowhard state legislators, the newly acquired platforms for the American media, and all this in support of the majority or in defense of the minority, take your pick , either way it is a grab bag of opportunity and fun for all. Let us now look upon our own upturned horseshoes and applaud the supreme court for not seriously interpreting and defending our peoples Constitution, for to do that would have been to look a gift horse in the mouth and would have possibly jeopardized our newly found bonanza of liberties belligerent.

Mote and Drawbridge

I shall have you know, it will not matter to my wife and I, who stows away the fruits of our labors, for their purpose, and not for our own, our land, our home, our sanctuary. Weather it is done by Federal, State, county, city, village, a local mob or even by some despicable pirates of the high seas. What will matter to us is how it was done and why. Was it because we trusted in the individual humanities of our fellow American mates. Was it because we did not incorporate the proper precautions, like maybe a mote and drawbridge, for which mechanisms to breach had already been secretively built. Was it because our battened down hatches were not so secure, or was it because we trusted our fellow Americans to stand sentinel for us.

No, It was because Americans in 1787 realized they could not protect themselves from themselves or from the aggressive acts of others unless all Americans were united. To do this they agreed to constitute themselves under one national flagship, to be guided under a sail of common cause, for their own self preservation’s and for the not so gratuitous pleasers of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, and for the most part this bulwark has held its own, built of the People, and by the People. Our Peoples Constitution has long flown towardly defiant, even though there have been many damaging broadsides.
Then on 06/23/05, the indivisible substance of our liberty that had for so long held our planks united was dissolved and the structure of our free republic was abridged, and now the American people don’t seem to understand that it is far better to repair and restore this tried and true vessel that has secured and united us fore well over 200 years of guided travel, then to look to the inferior protections that our state constitutions or elected officials will ford for us and the divisions in the treatment of our labors that will most assuredly result in what should otherwise have been a fruitful journey for us all. Although this old vessel of ours had tended to constrain the enterprising ambitions of some, it had also until now secured us from the gathering storms of selfish oppressions.
So now, when the waves of economic downturn and the ebb and flow of ambitious tides overtake our 50 new vessels one by one, and we are all separated by the currents of division. My wife and I will now look upon our own horizon and we will now look to our own supreme contract of unity, and forsake all others, for we now sail alone, and we will always know why we lost everything and how our fellow citizens in this great journey for mutual tranquility forgot what it took to free ourselves from the oppressive shores of tyranny, and so forgot the difficult lessons learned by the founders of the grandest ship afloat, the USS Federal Republic of The United States of America, that took sail under the flag of the supreme law of this promised land, our Peoples Constitution, that now will no longer wave for a united right of passage. For now it will be waved merely to signal that long lonely walk down the gangplank, that is now to lead us to nowhere.

First Response

To you'r Posts fellow Americans and to arms fellow patriots for the enemies of freedom have acquired their blueprint of victory! This blueprint is titled. KELO, and has the specific strategy of divide and conquer. This blueprint has already been handed off to their front line commanders and the soldiers of tyranny and oppression have begun their march of opportunity, for on 06/23/05 five Supreme court Judges gave decree. (An official order that has the force of law) That all state and local governments are now free to take our lands and properties without regard to the supreme law of this land, the National Constitution, and the restrictions placed on our governments in the aggressive actions of the displacements of its citizens. But do not despair fellow Americans fore we have the weapons to defend our freedoms and liberties, but the course of action we take will ultimately determine whether we win or lose this fight to be secure in our homes.

If we chose to defend ourselves with state constitutions we will be divided and we will lose, but on the other hand if we demand the restoration of our National Constitution and we demand that the Supreme Court rehear and remand this irresponsible and unconstitutional ruling ,then The Peoples Constitution might once again protect and prevent us from slavery. With the threat of a constitutional amendment and/or a public outcry so loud as to be heard in the heavens the Supreme Court most certainly can and will come to its senses.

"Neither let us be slanderd from our duty by false accusations against us,nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves.LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT,AND IN THAT FAITH,LET US,TO THE END,DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND"-.Abraham Lincoln. Cooper Union Add ress New York,New York Feb 27,1860.

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice,is it not reasonable to expect that thay will withdraw the mistaken statement,and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

Supreme Court Ruling 8/27/05

On this date 06/23/05 a gravely disastrous and historical event happened to a nation. A nation of people who are known world wide for their struggle to secure freedom and liberty for all. A nation of people who cared more about their nation and the rights of their fellow man then to their own self sacrifices.
On the date afore mentioned; the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled in a five/four vote to determine that public use was to be interpreted as private use, advocating the confiscation of private property for community and private profit, and in the abdication of their responsibility to defend, support, protect, and be principled by the Constitution of the United States of America and by giving up such determinations in property to our states and local municipalities, is to effectively abridge our National Constitution of the people and the intentions of its founders in its construction, holding true not to its found republic with the true words of a binding Peoples Constitution, but to a form of government reminiscent of the one it was empowered by our people to replace. i.e., The confederation of states, in which states possessed constitutional allegiance only upon themselves and to their own self empowered intentions, in which abuses of individual rights have no nationally constitutionalized restraints and states have no united constitutional limits in the taking of property.
Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worried that one day the amendments to the constitution would be corrupted singularly, disregarding the whole of our constitution and its intentions of a united people for what was once a call to freedom from the oppressive liberties of others.

"I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution"- Justice Thomas

Our Peoples Constitution is a legal document of contract outlining the obligations; restrictions and powers of our government, that was sent forth by its founders, to be ratified by the American people in the conventions of their delegates. One of the restrictions chiefly placed within our constitution is that of limiting the aggressive acts of government taking land owned by its citizens, and was considered to be of paramount importance, in its acceptance. The removal of this restriction, public use, that was placed upon our government at its founding, is an unprecedented act of governmental aggression, and is in complete violation of our United States constitution and the trust of the American people. The removal of this restriction will have dire consequences for us and our posterity. Even though shoring up state constitutions with amendments and policy statements in the defense of property rights as proposed by many state and local legislators might seem like a good idea, it should be noted that inherently, policy statements, state laws, and state constitutions are a lot easier to amend, adjust, alter or forego then our National Constitution was ever meant to be, and lets not forget that the United States Constitution was created to protect all the people of this nation, not just from the federal government itself, but also from that of individual states and local governments.
So now under this deluded National constitution, it is easy to imagine in the future, state and local legislators professing the necessities of taking private property, to cure economic downturns in the behalf of a majority to the detriment of a minority, instead of looking for viable alternatives, such as, an ever watchful eye on corruption and mismanagement of funds, or short sighted tax incentives and near sighted community engineering.

---

In my endeavors to relay the important issues at hand to the readers of this post I have found these interesting quotes.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." - John Adams

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself ,and the product of his labor ; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names- liberty and tyranny."- Abraham Lincoln

"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government"- Patrick Henry

I found the following statement in the-federalist papers.

"The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the Union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single states, who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people."-Alexander Hamilton

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -
Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774

It has now become immortally imperative for this generation of the American people to answer these questions.
Do we the people want the limits on government originally afforded us, by us, in our Peoples constitution, or shall we trust our fates in property, to individual states and local governments.
Can there be liberty without the security of ones castle. Can there truly be freedom without domestic tranquility. Where can the concept of justice be found when others can take what you own. Where does the pursuit of happiness lie. Where do the hopes and dreams for our posterity reside. What is it if not these things that Americans fight and die for.

If the five Supreme Court justices who made this ruling felt that their homes were in jeopardy, you can bet your mothers sweet apple pie they would not have done so.

This article is written in regards to...
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al."
certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut
No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005 Institute for Justice.org

Sincerely yours.
John Merritt Burns
Johnjmb714@yahoo.com