14

Landmark Supreme Court decision revives property rights- thanks to the Trump appointed justices

Posted by freedomforall 4 months ago to Philosophy
14 comments | Share | Flag

For a well reasoned interpretation of this ruling please also read Walter Donway's article
Property Rights Win a Dramatic Victory in the “Trump” Court
http://www.thesavvystreet.com/propert...
SOURCE URL: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/450556-landmark-supreme-court-decision-revives-property-rights


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 4 months ago
    It'll take more than one decision to bring the status back from minus to zero, then improve.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 months ago
      Yes. To fix property rights they have to declare the income tax unconstitutional.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 4 months ago
        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?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 4 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by GeoffreyH13 4 months ago
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 4 months ago
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  BostonTEA 4 months ago
    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).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo