johnwk
07-24-2009, 11:51 AM
SEE: GOP Sen. Graham To Support Sotomayor (http://wbztv.com/national/Lindsey.Graham.Sotomayor.2.1096648.html)
Jul 22, 2009 5:50 pm US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) ― Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that he will vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, breaking with his party's conservative leaders to back President Barack Obama's choice to be the first Hispanic justice.
The South Carolinian, who had hinted during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings that he might back the 55-year-old judge, said he would vote yes because "elections matter," and he believes she's a well-qualified jurist with a mainstream record that shows her "troubling" statements on race and gender don't drive her decisions on the bench.
Well isn’t that peachy, Senator Graham? Because “elections matter” we are to close our eyes to the oath of office we took to support “this Constitution” and vote to confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS who has, on repeated occasions, shown a disloyalty and disrespect for our constitutionally limited system of government, and has in fact been a willing accomplice in the savaging of constitutionally guarded guarantees, one of which is the protection of rights associated with property ownership!
In case you didn’t know, Senator Graham, while sitting on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Sotomayor ignored a property owner’s constitutional guarantee, Article V dealing with property ownership in Didden v. Village of Port Chester The case is summarized as follows: City officials of the Village of Port Chester had targeted Didden’s property in a redevelopment master plan. They wanted his property for a national chain drug store to be built thereon. Didden found a potential occupant, CVS, and a deal was struck to build a CVS drug/pharmacy store thereon which was in harmony with the City Official’s master plan. Didden was then contacted by G&S, a developer having a very close relationship with the Port Chester’s City officials and they demanded Didden to had over $800,000 to complete his deal with CVS, or agree to hand over fifty-percent of the profits earned under his CVS deal. Didden refused and remarkably the City Officials condemned Didden’s property the very next day and handed it over to G & S to build a Walgreens drug/pharmacy on the property in question .
The facts of the case are not in dispute, and while it is true that some may claim there was no extortion because an offer was made to Didden which he could refuse, and others may say the offer was extortion with Didden‘s property hanging in the balance, both positions are irrelevant to the central issue which is private property being condemned by government and taken for a “public use“ which is not in harmony with the meaning of “public use“ as the words appear in our constitutions, federal and state, as they were understood by our founding fathers.
Getting back to Senator Graham and Sotomayor, the UNIT ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT in issuing its decision in Didden’s appeal and Sotomayor being among the Justices hearing the appeal stated:
Moreover, even if Appellants' claims were not time-barred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct.
2655 (2005), obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted.
Now wait a second Senator Graham! Sotomayor, along with the other Justices, as well as you, did not take an oath of office to uphold a tyrannical United States Supreme Court decision AKA as a precedent setting case. Each of you took an oath to support “this Constitution” which is stated in crystal clear language in Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the united States!
The bottom line is, the City officials condemned a person’s property and handed it over to G&S. But the condemning of the land was not for a “public use” within the meaning of our Constitution, and, when the United States Court of Appeals reviewed the case, they, including Sonia Sotomayor, closed their eyes to the constitutional meaning of “public use” and relied upon Kelo which likewise ignored the meaning of “public use” as understood by our founding fathers when they agreed to put these words into our Constitution.
In fact, the Kelo decision changes the meaning of “public use”, as the words appears in Article V and were understood by our founding fathers, and changed the meaning to include “public benefit” or “public purpose“. And after doing so, the Kelo decision even goes a step further to broaden the meaning of “public benefit” and/or “public purpose” to include and allow the taking of private property from its original owner, transferring that property to another private citizen, so long as the new owner’s use of the property provides an incidental “public benefit”, or an incidental “public purpose” as suggested in Didden, by G&S building a Walgreens.
Of course, the Kelo decision savages the most fundamental rule of constitutional law!
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
And,
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
The irrefutable savaging of the meaning of “public use” as used in our Constitution and used by our founding fathers is pointed out in the dissenting opinions in Kelo, e.g.:
Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "[T]hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983).
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... Postpone(s) even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."
Taking all the above into account and what is at stake, rights associated with property ownership, how on earth can one who supports and defends our constitutionally limited system of government vote to approve Sotomayor who has, on repeated occasions, shown a disloyalty and disrespect for our constitutionally limited system of government, and has in fact been a willing accomplice in the savaging of constitutionally guarded guarantees, one of which is pointed out above ___ the protection of rights associated with property ownership? And this does not even take into account Sotomayor’s trampling upon the specific intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, an amendment adopted specifically to forbid the force of government being used to discriminate on the basis of race as was attempted by Sotomayor in the firefighter’s case, not to mention her joking of judges making public policy, which they are not authorized to do under our constitutionally limited system of government and is a function set aside for our legislatures.
In closing, Mr. Graham, I have no problem classifying you as Senator Lindsey Graham, our traitor from South Carolina because you are a traitor to the oath of office you took and are a willing accomplice in the ongoing attack upon our Constitution, an attack which works to overturn the documented intentions under which it was adopted.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Jul 22, 2009 5:50 pm US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) ― Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that he will vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, breaking with his party's conservative leaders to back President Barack Obama's choice to be the first Hispanic justice.
The South Carolinian, who had hinted during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings that he might back the 55-year-old judge, said he would vote yes because "elections matter," and he believes she's a well-qualified jurist with a mainstream record that shows her "troubling" statements on race and gender don't drive her decisions on the bench.
Well isn’t that peachy, Senator Graham? Because “elections matter” we are to close our eyes to the oath of office we took to support “this Constitution” and vote to confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS who has, on repeated occasions, shown a disloyalty and disrespect for our constitutionally limited system of government, and has in fact been a willing accomplice in the savaging of constitutionally guarded guarantees, one of which is the protection of rights associated with property ownership!
In case you didn’t know, Senator Graham, while sitting on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Sotomayor ignored a property owner’s constitutional guarantee, Article V dealing with property ownership in Didden v. Village of Port Chester The case is summarized as follows: City officials of the Village of Port Chester had targeted Didden’s property in a redevelopment master plan. They wanted his property for a national chain drug store to be built thereon. Didden found a potential occupant, CVS, and a deal was struck to build a CVS drug/pharmacy store thereon which was in harmony with the City Official’s master plan. Didden was then contacted by G&S, a developer having a very close relationship with the Port Chester’s City officials and they demanded Didden to had over $800,000 to complete his deal with CVS, or agree to hand over fifty-percent of the profits earned under his CVS deal. Didden refused and remarkably the City Officials condemned Didden’s property the very next day and handed it over to G & S to build a Walgreens drug/pharmacy on the property in question .
The facts of the case are not in dispute, and while it is true that some may claim there was no extortion because an offer was made to Didden which he could refuse, and others may say the offer was extortion with Didden‘s property hanging in the balance, both positions are irrelevant to the central issue which is private property being condemned by government and taken for a “public use“ which is not in harmony with the meaning of “public use“ as the words appear in our constitutions, federal and state, as they were understood by our founding fathers.
Getting back to Senator Graham and Sotomayor, the UNIT ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT in issuing its decision in Didden’s appeal and Sotomayor being among the Justices hearing the appeal stated:
Moreover, even if Appellants' claims were not time-barred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct.
2655 (2005), obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted.
Now wait a second Senator Graham! Sotomayor, along with the other Justices, as well as you, did not take an oath of office to uphold a tyrannical United States Supreme Court decision AKA as a precedent setting case. Each of you took an oath to support “this Constitution” which is stated in crystal clear language in Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the united States!
The bottom line is, the City officials condemned a person’s property and handed it over to G&S. But the condemning of the land was not for a “public use” within the meaning of our Constitution, and, when the United States Court of Appeals reviewed the case, they, including Sonia Sotomayor, closed their eyes to the constitutional meaning of “public use” and relied upon Kelo which likewise ignored the meaning of “public use” as understood by our founding fathers when they agreed to put these words into our Constitution.
In fact, the Kelo decision changes the meaning of “public use”, as the words appears in Article V and were understood by our founding fathers, and changed the meaning to include “public benefit” or “public purpose“. And after doing so, the Kelo decision even goes a step further to broaden the meaning of “public benefit” and/or “public purpose” to include and allow the taking of private property from its original owner, transferring that property to another private citizen, so long as the new owner’s use of the property provides an incidental “public benefit”, or an incidental “public purpose” as suggested in Didden, by G&S building a Walgreens.
Of course, the Kelo decision savages the most fundamental rule of constitutional law!
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
And,
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
The irrefutable savaging of the meaning of “public use” as used in our Constitution and used by our founding fathers is pointed out in the dissenting opinions in Kelo, e.g.:
Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "[T]hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983).
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... Postpone(s) even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."
Taking all the above into account and what is at stake, rights associated with property ownership, how on earth can one who supports and defends our constitutionally limited system of government vote to approve Sotomayor who has, on repeated occasions, shown a disloyalty and disrespect for our constitutionally limited system of government, and has in fact been a willing accomplice in the savaging of constitutionally guarded guarantees, one of which is pointed out above ___ the protection of rights associated with property ownership? And this does not even take into account Sotomayor’s trampling upon the specific intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, an amendment adopted specifically to forbid the force of government being used to discriminate on the basis of race as was attempted by Sotomayor in the firefighter’s case, not to mention her joking of judges making public policy, which they are not authorized to do under our constitutionally limited system of government and is a function set aside for our legislatures.
In closing, Mr. Graham, I have no problem classifying you as Senator Lindsey Graham, our traitor from South Carolina because you are a traitor to the oath of office you took and are a willing accomplice in the ongoing attack upon our Constitution, an attack which works to overturn the documented intentions under which it was adopted.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.