LEGAL LAND THEFT AND THE SUPREME COURT

 

 

 

Paul Collins
September 13, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

When a student is introduced to the subject of American political science, the three branches of the national government is one of the first topics explored. The student is taught that the judicial branch�s primary task is to interpret the law. It was for this purpose that the Supreme Court was created. In June of 2005, a Supreme Court ruling in Kelo versus New London, a case concerning the issue of eminent domain, drastically redefined the Court�s role in national politics. CNN�s Parija Bhatnagar reported the following concerning the Supreme Courts ruling:

The Court�s actions in this particular case make it painfully obvious that the justices have become little more than politicians in robes. Do not be deceived. Supreme Court nominees are no longer chosen based on their judicial philosophy. It is naive to believe that a potential nominee is called into the Oval Office by the President and asked whether he or she is a proponent of judicial activism or judicial restraint. A simple question is posed to the nominee: �Are you willing to dance?� Eager to ascend up the political ladder, the nominee will invariably answer in the affirmative. So the Supreme Court is now made up of justices dancing to a political tune. This leads to the next question: �Who is calling the tune?�

The answer to the above question is disturbing. If property can be taken away from the people for private economic development, then that means the government is giving preferential treatment to private forces. Those private forces would be correctly labeled an aristocracy. The Supreme Court has been prostituted out to the Power Elite for the purpose of transforming the Republic into an oligarchy.

The Kelo versus New London ruling will help preserve the blueblood tradition of stealing the commoners� lands in the name of profit. This is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. In fifteenth century England, major landowners began fencing in common land. Originally, those lower down the economic food chain used these lands as tilling and grazing grounds. All of that had changed by 1600. Major landowners had enclosed one-eighth of England�s arable land (Chambers et al. 474).

In the eighteenth century, notions and concepts of democratic institutions and representative, constitutional republicanism began to be popularized. With this rise in popularity, the masses began to breathe easy, believing Olympian delirium had finally been expunged. Perhaps now the common person would enjoy the property rights as well. After all, two of the inalienable rights recognized by America�s Founding Fathers were the right to liberty and property. This meant that man had an inalienable right not only to produce, but also to keep that which he produced. One�s incentive to be productive comes from these two rights.

However, the plight of the Native Americans painfully illustrates the fact that the bluebloods� tradition of land theft was far from over. As Dr. James W. Wardner points out in The Planned Destruction of America: �It was the privately owned railroads which initially worked with the government to steal Indian land and water. Now it�s the privately owned oil conglomerates and agribusinesses� (150-151). Wardner explains how this was accomplished:

Whites and other Americans that were not of Native American descent were able to brush off these crimes because they were largely unaffected by such land theft. Social engineering has programmed the majority of Americans to reside strictly in their belly buttons, unmoved by injustice so long as they go unharmed. With Kelo versus New London, the debt collector has finally come knocking at our doors and it is now our turn to pay.

Fortunately, there has been some movement in the right direction. Shortly after the decision in Kelo came down, over 40 states began taking steps to limit their general policing power as it pertains to property seizures. However, this can only be considered a starting point. What is needed now are Supreme Court Justices who are unwilling to prostitute themselves out to the Power Elite. Blocking the confirmation of Bush�s current nominee, John G. Roberts, would certainly begin to reverse the trend.

Many conservatives within the controlled conservative movement have misidentified Roberts as one of their own. Nothing could be further from the truth. Roberts has back several authoritarian measures that would aid the Power Elite in transforming America into an oligarchy. One such measure was his proposal for the establishment of a national ID card, ostensibly to fight illegal immigration. In USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Tony Locy reported the following:

The two journalists explored the rationale behind Robert�s proposal:

Robert�s support of authoritarian measures did not end with his days in the Reagan White House. His action in July 2005 show that he is still a long way off from walking the straight and narrow. William Grigg elaborates:

It is obvious that behind Robert�s clean-cut conservative mask hides a proponent of oligarchy. Moreover, the democrats cannot be expected to save us from him. When the democrats started using the filibuster to block the President�s nomination, Senate majority leader William Frist proposed the �nuclear option�. The �nuclear option� was a call for a vote to do away with the filibuster. With the republicans dominating both the House and the Senate, elimination of the filibuster was almost guaranteed. This led to the �Gang of 14�, which was a group of fourteen senators, coming together and reaching a compromise. Democrats promised not to use the filibuster unless there were �extraordinary circumstances�. A clear and concise definition of �extraordinary circumstances� was never presented.

Charles Schumer has done a good job at talking tough when it comes to the Roberts nomination. However, it should be noted that good ole Chucky has never been on our side. Schumer shown his authoritarian propensities when he lumped all members of citizen militias into a criminal category. While there are some shady characters in the militia movement, there are also many law-abiding citizens who correctly fear the rise of a garrison state. The senator also shamefully sided with the ATF against the Branch Davidians during the time of the Waco atrocity. Schumer�s threats of releasing the dogs of war on Roberts is merely a publicity stunt to convince his supporters that he fought hell and high water for their interest. Behind closed doors away from the media�s eye, Roberts and Schumer are merely Establishment kissing cousins.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Grass roots opposition is what is called for here. Instead of relying on a well-dressed politician who promises the world and delivers absolutely nothing, Americans should voice their sentiments for themselves. If the majority of Americans were heard through petitions, letters, and phone calls to their representatives, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate would have no choice but to be receptive. In the very least, they will realize they are no longer dealing with an ignorant an indolent public.

Sources Cited:

1, Bhatnagar, Parija. "Eminent domain-A big box bonanza?" CNN 24 June 2005.
2, Biskupic, Joan and Tony Locy. "Roberts argued for ID Card, against women's rights act." USAToday, 18 August 2005.
3, Chambers, Mortimer et al. The Western Experience Volume B: The Early Modern Era. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003.
4, Grigg, William Norman. "The Roberts Nomination: Presidential Power Uber Alles." The New American 20 July 2005.
5, Wardner, Dr, James W. The Planned Destruction of America. DeBary, Florida: Longwood Communication, 1994.

� 2005 Paul Collins - All Rights Reserved