Proposition 207Proposition 207On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized the theft of private property. With the 5-4 decision on the case of Kelo vs. New London, it is now permissible for the government to seize private property from one individual and turn it over to another private body in the hope of realizing financial gain. Seeking to protect the citizenry from this from this landmark decision, many states have already passed legislation to prevent such sanctioned larceny. All but two states that lack freshly enacted Kelo laws have placed ballot propositions in the 2006 general elections aimed to countermand the disastrous court decision. Fortunately for the constituency, Arizona is one of the states that have decided to put this issue to a vote of the people. Proposition 207 must pass in order to protect Arizona from this type of immoral and despicable government encroachment on basic liberties.
The ACLU of Arizona believes that the criminal government’s “criminalization” of private Americans is unconstitutional. The Arizona legislature is clear in its pro-larceny legislation: “This is not about saving the people.”
We are working hard to bring this issue to the ballot within two years and I am eager to get it done. The legal situation in Arizona is different than in any state except California and New York, which have enacted similar criminal laws and in other states like Mississippi, Nebraska and Florida are also considering similar measures to remove the criminal statute from their statute book as a means of prosecuting those that have been involved in legal wrongdoing for over a decade.
As we have seen in numerous recent Supreme Court rulings and legislative cases, the criminal and statutory government have been particularly strong on the political and economic front since the 1930s. The recent and ongoing legal battles surrounding the use of eminent domain and eminent domain to “invent” and build roads make the situation even worse.
Moreover, a history of “civil disobedience” has contributed to the “government power” (as used as “constitutional right” by political parties) being wielded by both the state of Arizona and the federal government. The recent Supreme Court decision in Plessy v US indicates that the Arizona constitution has often been interpreted to permit political or regulatory behavior that is not allowed by the constitution.
So what is the best course of action to address the present situation in Arizona and elsewhere?
Firstly, Congress and the state legislatures must act to change policies towards American citizens
I also believe that, following a number of recent Supreme Court findings, the political and economic power of governments is too weak and too strong a political entity to continue to hold elected officials accountable. For this reason, Congress and the states must act to keep these government programs and policies in check and by imposing laws that should only be enforced by state and local elected officials.
The legislature must act to prevent this from occurring. Such a law, if passed, gives “public officials” power and authority over these government funds, including government actions related to elections that do not adversely affect the public’s well being.
This would create an unwieldy and unsustainable system that is unsustainable for the economy. It is time for the government to step on its toes. If this country has to face elections, it must change its behavior.
Second, we should never get too hung up on the “public” money issue. These government programs are the main means by which money is used by people to spend and benefit from our welfare, for example, education, Medicare, health insurance, retirement programs, public employee pensions, pensions and tax credits and so on. We do not expect the public to participate in these financial schemes and instead, politicians need to ensure that they are made as safe, efficient and effective as possible. Public funding and subsidies are important but are ultimately not enough.
The current federal government’s recent actions in the state of Arizona and elsewhere demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the state of Arizona’s corrupt campaign finance laws have become.
Second, the federal government owes everyone a debt, not just to the state of Arizona or to the state of New York because the former must pay some federal taxes.
Third, the federal government owes its citizens a very unfair amount that it owes them because of unconstitutional and illegal political activities. Even in the past 15 years, the federal government has lost at least $500 million of the federal government’s share in this debt. The government simply cannot pay its share of the money due to unconstitutional actions. The federal government has spent far too much on political issues outside elections or campaigns, like its own,
Governments have long since been obligated to take property under the clause of eminent domain. Eminent Domain is a necessary evil. As bad as one may feel for a displaced family or a farmer left without fields, property must occasionally be remanded for the public good. Highways need to be widened, rivers must be spanned, and schools must be built. Progress and community growth sometimes come at a price that is very painful to some. However, it is understood that these projects are to improve the lives and well being of the general public, and are therefore worthwhile.
Where the Kelo decision parts from communal respectability, is that it allows land and property to be appropriated for the sole purpose of generating additional revenue. For scores of municipalities and townships, the Kelo decision immediately lead to government abuse of eminent domain in the hopes of making a quick buck. Property taken from small business and home owners is turned over to private companies in anticipation that the redevelopment will result in a profit windfall via property, sales, and increased income taxes from the new, wealthier residents.
The town of Riviera Beach, Florida is just one of many examples of Kelo fallout. The city is attempting to take the housing of 6,000 poor, predominantly African-American residents. In place of the occupied homes, the city hopes to install a multibillion dollar yachting complex and high-end retail and residential areas. The residential area features homes starting in the low seven figures.
The poor are not the only class of people who need fear this decision. The abuse of eminent domain, if left unchecked, can extend to attempts to remove or shut-down any entities not approved of by the governing body. Any business, corporation, or private group can effectively be erased from existence if they meet with the disapproval of the local elders. Churches, night clubs, gun stores, newspapers and a plethora of other establishments are now fair game for seizure and closure