Saturday, 3 September 2016

More On 'Value'

I get mail.  And sometimes it leaves me fuming.

Case in point.

A letter from John M. Groen, Interim President of an outfit called the Pacific Legal Foundation,1 has informed me of an outrage going on in our country (one of many such) as experienced by one family.  To quote from his letter (as it fights this fall “at the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the Murr family’s right to property and its reasonable use”):

“In the early 1960s, William Murr and his wife, Margaret, bought a parcel of land on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin where they built a small cabin.

“All they wanted was a place where they could take their six children in the summertime to get out and enjoy nature and bond as a family.

“A few years later, William and Margaret bought the parcel of land next to their cabin, thinking it would be a good investment.”

So far, so very American…

“Year after year, their family enjoyed coming to that cabin each summer to go fishing and canoeing.  There was nothing fancy about their little slice of paradise on the river, but it meant a lot to them.

“When William and Margaret passed away some four decades later, they left the cabin and both parcels of land to their six children.  Meanwhile, the area had become quite built up with beautiful waterfront homes.”

Sounds like they really lucked out, in the traditional way of The American Dream…To continue:

“The Murr children, now adults, wanted to sell the vacant parcel of land their parents purchased as an investment and use that money to make some much-needed repairs on the family cabin.

This was William and Margaret’s thing wish for their children…but Big Government bureaucrats had other plans for their property.  (Emphases in original, & below)

State and local officials forbid the Murr children from selling the vacant lot, citing a regulation that went into effect long after their family purchased the property.

“This new regulation says that two parcels of land that are next to each other and owned by the same people should be treated as one parcel even if they were  bought separately and for different purposes.

These government bureaucrats told the Murr family that they cannot sell the empty parcel of land and neither can they develop it.”

This is outrageous.  Wait - there’s more:

Perhaps worst of all, during all these years the government taxed their land as two separate parcels.  The Murrs paid property taxes on an empty parcel that now is of no use to them whatsoever!”

Besides being doubly outrageous - the state trying to have its cake and eat it too - there is something very fishy about this….ah.  Got it.  But to continue:

                                  “The Constitution is clear on matters like this.

“The Fifth Amendment states that the government cannot take away a citizen’s private property without offering ‘just compensation.’”2  “And the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that the government cannot ‘deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’”3

“By forbidding them to use or sell their own property, the government is essentially taking the Murr family’s property without due process and without payment of just compensation.

The right to own property is one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans.  If the government can trample on this basic right, where does it stop?” 

Just so.

“That’s why our team here at Pacific Legal Foundation agreed to represent the Murr family free of charge to defend their Constitutional rights…”

A worthy cause if there ever was one.

So, cutting to the chase:

What we have here is an example - like that of the Bundys over in Nevada, and others - of the attempts by the Obama administration, in cahoots with the UN’s Agenda 21, in this instance quietly working away at the state and local level, to take over this country, "transforming" it and putting it under UN control, as merely part of a region of our erstwhile masters’ New World Order.

Of which, I beg to differ.

And so say a lot of us Americans.  I sincerely hope.

P.S. Will things change regarding property, and its use?
     Very possibly.
     But not this way.
     Rather, in the way of a Higher Order of Things.  Than Man's ignoble ways.


1 “Ronald Reagan” (back in 1973, when he was still only a name on the state level, as governor of California) “ noticed that there were a lot of liberal public interest law firms, like the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  But at the time, there wasn’t a single conservative group fighting for the Constitution in the courtroom.
   “Reagan’s advisors sought to fix that problem by forming Pacific Legal Foundation…”

2 There is a fundamental legalistic argument here, that goes all the way back to the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists; the Anti-Federalists argument being that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, in limiting - spelling out some of the limitations to - the powers of the federal government, with most such powers remaining in the bailiwick of the States, and dealt with in and by the constitutions of the several States; the new, federal government being one only of limited and delegated powers - “few and defined,” in the rather definitive words of the statesman known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.  The Federalists to the contrary assuming that the Bill of Rights applies to all Americans, in what are commonly called, and widely thought of to this day, as ‘our constitutional rights’ - all such powers and rights secured for us by the (federal) Constitution.  And thus, to their way of thinking, when the Fifth Amendment opens with the words, “No person shall be held to” such-and-such, it means to apply to all American citizens, across the board; state constitutions to the contrary notwithstanding.  Not so, argued - vehemently (there being giants in the American earth on such subjects in those days) - the Anti-Federalists: the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government; to bind it down from mischief, as we get on with our lives in the several sovereign States.  (As the Federalists sighed, and wondered, ‘But that’s why we’re trying to get away from the weak Articles of Confederation’…)   
   It is a worthy debate.  But it was made moot, in this instance, by the clear wording of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment on the issue.  And thus, to proceed with PLF’s Interim President John M. Groen’s letter of financial appeal. 

3 The 14th Amendment spelling out without ambiguity who it was by then talking about; thus:
   “No State shall” do such-and-such; “…not shall any State” do such-and-such.  Until then, the several States, through their constitutions, had total control over such matters.  It was, however, all under the rule of law. 
   Unlike today, with the Executive in particular having amassed powers beyond its rightful provenance.  Like unto King George III.
   But to continue.


P.P.S.  A further word along this line:

"Federal government abuse of property rights is fueling this rebellion in Northern California and Southern Oregon" where the landowners and leaseholders are voting to create a 51st state to be known as Jefferson, because the areas have "fallen under the Agenda 21 mandates of the United Nations as being enforced by the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)". - Dave Hodges, The Common Sense Show, for September 2/3, under the title 'The Breakup Of The US Has Begun'.  Their areas being slowly slowly turned into non-human-going areas, with the point of total human depopulation of the areas, and the herding of the inhabitants into urban stack-and-pack living.  Or into FEMA camps, if they insist on being stubborn about The Plan...

...which is looking to divide the US into 10 FEMA Regions.  Complete with 'Re-education camps'.  What Hillary called 'fun camps'...

Poor Fella, My Country.

No comments: