OT - Hey Matt CT - Public Advocacy proceedings

Property rights battles have been raging in the Western US for some time now due BLM and other agencies. Property rights is very dear to the hearts of us that are stewards of our land; John Q. Public does not have that same sense of responsibility.

All that said, here is a public advocacy site that has started Supreme Court Justices "impeachment proceedings" signature collections. This is one of non-scientific public opinion polls measuring the public winds of sentiment.

While I would like to see it take hold I doubt it will due to general American citizenry apathy. Read the U.S. Constitution for legal proceedings needed for impeachment.

I will say this - if NAFTA did not crush you, CAFTA will ! Please take the time to call you representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, and your U.S. Senator. Spread the word, take action. Thanks.

www.StopCAFTA.com

FWIW

• Petition On-Line for Supreme Court Justices

BUT...I would simply tackle the issue head-on.

If they say under the current Constitution the gov't has the power to do what they did in New London...

Then we get an amendment passed that removes that power from the Government and gives more rights to persons.

That's the *proper* way to do it.

I keep playing in my head of a nice, simple, non-technical way to put it that would still make sense another 200 years from now...

"Private property shall not be taken involuntarily from a real person for the purpose of financial gain by another person or the Government." maybe...

"Property shall not be taken for the purpose of financial gain by another person or government." maybe...

While I don't agree with the SCOTUS decision that gave corporations the same "rights" as real persons, I wouldn't want them to be able to take my small incorporated business either. Striking "private" would prevent the feds from taking state property. Striking "involuntary" just makes the ammendment less restrictive.

Below is a link to the plaintiff in this suit. They are a "non-
profit" organization. From their website:

"The New London Development Corporation (NLDC) is committed to creating public-private partnerships that act as an engine for economic development..."

Whatever the hell that means. I think that bribes and kickbacks could be classified as a "public-private partnership".

Fat chance on the ammendment, though. Congress has become the legislative branch of the Fortune 500. They will only pass legislation that is good for the big corporations. When they retire they can get a seat on the board of directors!

• New London Development Corporation

NLDC is a "Community Development Corporation" -- it's a War-on-Poverty (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964) creation.

Not necessarily a bad idea in all cases. Another nearby city (Norwich) runs their industrial park through the Norwich Community Development Corporation so each lease negotiated isn't subject to direct political pressure.

===== =
striking "real" wouldn't be hard for me to agree to.

"involuntarily" I'm not so sure -- if I sell land knowing it's going to economic development, I probably don't need much protection. I'm not sure if "involuntarily" is implicit in "taking" though...I could be redundant.

"Private" is in keeping with how it's currently worded. Interesting though in dropping it.

In CT, the case law essentially establishes that among the Towns, one Town can't use emminent domain against another since it would setup and endless loop. You can use emminent domain outside of your town (for instance, to buy reservoir land), but you can't take property already publicly owned.

My Town was involved with this back about 20 years ago when a town in the Southwestern part of the state tried to take our privately-owned landfill by emminent domain and there was a race to the Town Clerk's office of who (Stamford or my town of Brooklyn) would file the papers first since the timestamp on papers would be crucial! With rumours that our attorneys snuck in a window to be inside when my aunt unlocked the office door...

The State, however, can take land from the Towns. Not private property so it's not under the U.S. Constitution per se, but they follow the same rules voluntarily for taking public (Town) land as they do for private property.

I would think the Feds would act similiarly.