Good to see that SCOTUS enforces just causes once in a while, when Roberts is at his sane judgement.

Still, Knick must continue her saga and I can't imagine at what price she prevailed to this end.

Taking on the federal government is a daunting task both financially and at the cost of your sanity day by day.

Very few can or willing to take the road of fighting it.

Increasing the ways to fight back against government is ALWAYS a good thing!
Question for any LAWYERS out there:
The Hill article has a "tag" of "eminent domain" but does not mention eminent domain in the article.
Could this apply to eminent domain cases where, post-Kelo, certain oppressive state governments (cough-cough, Massachusetts) which were not counted among the 44 or states that worked to FIX eminent domain abuse, post-Kelo....
Asking for an acquaintance (no, seriously).

So true. 👍

There have been challenges to the ratification process. They have been conspicuously ignored just as the requests for Obama's birth certificate and the subsequent exposure that the certificates were forgeries were ignored.

Fascinating. Never heard that before. Sounds like someone needs to challenge it in front of the Supreme Court. We may have to get rid of Roberts first, however. His inexplicable flop-flopping on some of the most cut-and-dried issues is flabbergasting.

Actually it isn’t. The written amendment given to the states was not uniform, meaning the documents had different wording to different states, which by default makes the amendment illegally passed and therefore not a legal amendment. If you look at the several court cases on that subject you’ll see the judges in them did not allow subpoenas for the original documents distributed to the states into evidence because they knew that if they allowed all of them to be entered into evidence, it would show the states were illegally given documents with different wording done to tailor the argument from state to state. That violates contract law and since they all voted based on differently worded documents that makes the final judgement of it becoming an amendment null and void.

Given that Trump was in favor of New London in the infamous Kelo vs. New London SCOTUS case, there's irony here.

The income tax is Constitutional - it was passed as an amendment. Whether or not that was a good idea is another thing, but we have to remember that something is Constitutional if it is part of the Constitution and properly interpreted. What we need is to pass another Constitutional Amendment nullifying the Sixteenth and putting it back where it belongs - out of the hands of Federal bureaucrats and lawmakers.

Now, they need to go after the little towns with out of control fines and nabbing cars for profit.

Yay! Sanity restored!

In the beginning income tax was unconstitutional and was reaffirmed when Lincoln tried to enact an income tax. Then the Constitution was amended (16th) to allow taxing income under the ruse "tax the rich". See how that worked out?

Yes. To fix property rights they have to declare the income tax unconstitutional.

It'll take more than one decision to bring the status back from minus to zero, then improve.

Hopefully this is the first of many property rights cases leading to the return to the original ideas about property rights.