March 26, 2017


Some want clarifications. First, what was I referring to when I wrote: " ... so that the citizen has no confidence that what he has placed his faith in and ordered his life around will not be swept up right from under his feet rendering him and normalcy collateral damage in the rush to de-legitimize the indispensable moral law and even common sense. These partisans serve Mammon and their own hubris, not the foundation of the Constitution itself, the natural law, without which man descends into chaos, tyranny, and change upon change to the point of meaninglessness."

I had in mind the Supreme Court case of Kelo, that originated in Connecticut. At issue was the use of
eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says, in part, that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation also applies to the actions of state and local governments. The plaintiffs argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the taking and subsequent transfer of land to the New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. The Court 5-4, all the liberals including Kennedy, decided that economic development, which would benefit government indirectly [taxes] qualified as eminent domain under the Constitution. This actually places the ordinary citizen with property in peril, for direct actual government need for taking property with compensation, while not rare is at least acceptable for it is restricted to absolute necessity. In Kelo, there was no government entity itself acquiring the property for government use but two private parties, one with big money against a little landowner, Susan Kelo, who eventually lost as we all did because this changed the Due Process clause forever by subtle shift of meaning so as to transfer power from government to favored private citizen in essence. Interestingly and ironically, the developer never followed through so that SUSAN KELO LOST OUT FOR NOTHING THAT SUPPOSEDLY BENEFITED GOVERNMENT.

In reality, if a business wants to expand - thereby more taxes for a local government - and has its eye on your property which you cherish and want to pass down to your children, thus refuse to sell, you are out of luck as they say. As for due compensation this is debatable given economic realities of replacement costs, not to mention land in the family for generations, no small thing. Since all businesses pay taxes higher than the little property owner, guess who wins every time under this ruling, which is now the supreme "law" of the land? You've got it!

Note, the little guy has no more expectation to live and die on his land as his father and grandfather before him. He lives in fear that if he is in a desired locale he is easy prey to any concern which is unscrupulous, albeit so-called legal.

Second, if Judge Gorsuch says he can be impartial, why are you concerned about a future challenge to Oberfegell?

The judge is not a liar. I believe him when he says he is impartial -  in his heart and soul and mind
he honestly believes this. He had added that if he already has his mind settled before a case came before him, it would be unfair to the plaintiff. Well, I also believed him when he said Oberfegell was settled! He is in conflict with himself, unintentionally, of course. He is confused about all the necessary implications. Of course he cannot be impartial as he desires if his mind is already made up on a matter he has no authority to do so as the natural law, which is supreme over the Constitution, and which cannot be abrogated by any court or official, period! Moreover, Justice John Roberts found that the decision in Oberfegell had nothing to do with the Constitution, as neither the other three dissenting Justices.