District Office Lease Amendment - U.S. House Of Representatives: Fill & Download for Free

I think a lot of us would want some new Constitutional Amendments, so the answer here has to be either that (1) yes, it is somewhat outdated or (2) that the Founders did not have it all right to begin with.But I suppose that is not all that you wanted to read with your question. What are some of the better or more interesting Constitutional Amendments that folks might propose? Here are some to consider, based on suggestions from more than one political perspective, though not all of the ideas. Think of the below as cliffnote or sparknote thought-provokers, if you will.I may be rather picky on the Balanced Budget Amendment idea though. Only a sufficiently nuanced one would really work. Oh well, here’s to hoping someone like Thomas Massie or Rand Paul sees this… anywho….Constitutional Amendment #1: No Presidential ‘Self-Pardon’ ClarificationThe President shall not have the authority to pardon himself for crimes committed while in office.Constitutional Amendment #2: Auto-confirmation of judges/officialsEvery presidential nominee would be considered to be confirmed if the Senate does not affirm or reject the nomination within 120 days. The recess appointments clause should also be changed so that appointments are effective only for the recess and 120 days after the Senate returns to session.Constitutional Amendment #3: Equal Rights AmendmentThe Constitution should specifically guarantee equal rights regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, religion, country of origin, disability, sexual orientation, social position, migration status, and gender identity, and it should be put in terms of anti-discrimination language that includes reference to employment, voting for government elections, housing, and credit / financial services.[1]Constitutional Amendment #4: Campaign Finance Reform AmendmentConstitutional Amendment #5: No Two-Party System AmendmentSome would desire to eliminate the USA’s two-party system. They might suggest that we should change the way we divvy out congressional districts. What if we had a “proportional voting method for the House of Representatives,” enabling third-parties to win some seats in the legislature? It might even get the two established parties to go “beyond their traditional comfort zones.”Constitutional Amendment #6: Voting Non-Discrimination AmendmentThe religion, national origin, race, gender, or political affiliation (etc.) of a particular person shall not constitute grounds for prohibiting that person from voting; state and federal legislative districts shall be “compact, contiguous and as nearly equal in population as is practical.”Constitutional Amendment #7: Congressional Terms and Their LimitsSection #1. Upon ratification of this amendment, no member of Congress shall serve more than twelve consecutive years as a Senator or member of the House of Representatives.Section #2: All members of the House of Representatives shall have terms that are three years in length, with elections of the House of Representatives occurring every three years.Constitutional Amendment #8: “Merrick Garland Amendment.”Section 1. Any bill, treaty or nomination that has the support of at least one-fifth of the Senate shall be presented to the full Senate for due consideration.Section 2. Any bill that has the support of at least one-fifth of the House of Representatives shall be presented to the full House of Representatives for due consideration.Constitutional Amendment #9: No Civil Asset ForfeitureCivil asset forfeiture shall be unconstitutional and the penalty for government agencies and law enforcement departments engaging in such a practice shall be revocation of citizenship as well as deportation in banishment from the United States.Constitutional Amendment #10: No Precious Metals ConfiscationsThe United States government shall not have the power to confiscate gold or silver for any reason whatsoever but rather, must pay the marketplace value for all gold and silver acquisitions.Constitutional Amendment #11: Nuanced Balanced Budget AmendmentSection 1: The budget of the federal government of the United States shall match the calendar year, the first day of a fiscal budget being the first day of the calendar year, January 1st. The federal level of government shall maintain a balanced budget between calendar years, beginning with the calendar year starting after the passage of this amendment.Section 2: The absolute limit on spending by the federal government in a given calendar year shall be the precise amount of value in currency as the federal government obtained during the previous calendar year (in revenues).Section 3: A portion of each calendar year’s budget shall be set aside for provisions for disaster relief and other emergencies. That portion shall not be expanded in such a way as to violate section 2 of this amendment, but any currency in that fund that was not spent by December 30th of a given calendar year shall be spent on December 31st of that given calendar year to address debt reduction of the federal government and or state governments of the United States.Section 4: Congress shall have the power to determine in each given year where any leftover funds in the emergency account shall go for debt reduction, whether to reduce the debts held by the federal government or particular states of the United States.Section 5: Debt reduction constitutes a reduction of the principal, not the interest, on borrowed funds.Section 6: There are no exceptions granted to section 2.Section 7: The government of the United States neither shall have the power to decrease the supply of currency in circulation or in production nor shall have the power to increase the supply of currency in circulation or in production, beyond the quantity equal to 3% of the revenues obtained by the federal government during the previous calendar year.Section 8: If Congress at any time should fail to actualize this Constitutional Amendment after its ratification, all then-current members of Congress are ineligible for reelection to Congress, as well as ineligible to be elected, hired, or nominated to any office in the government of the United States, whether local, state, or federal.[2]Constitutional Amendment #12: No Property and Serious Investment TaxesSection 1: No level of the government of the United States shall engage in property taxation on estates; no level of government shall tax the value of appreciation of property, nor the value of the property itself, on any basis tied with time of holding such property; nor shall any taxes be levied on any amount of land owned, leased, or rented.Section 2: No level of government of the United States shall engage in property taxation on any means of transportation, nor shall any charge be made for the renewal of licenses to drive motorized non-aircraft vehicles, nor shall any charge be made for the renewal of decals.Section 3: No level of the government of the United States shall tax capital gains on the stock market.Section 4: No level of the government of the United States shall tax dividends earned on the stock market.Section 5: No level of the government of the United States shall tax income earned off of certificate of deposit financial instruments.Constitutional Amendment #13: Right to Life AmendmentObviously, this one would be contentious for those supporting abortion for convenience, and depending on the details, might be highly controversial, but many would argue that the government should be obligated to defend innocent human life and that fetuses are innocent human life.Constitutional Amendment #14: Prayer in SchoolsThe right of each student and teacher, regardless of age, to voluntarily pray in a non-violent manner on the property of any educational institution, whether silently or aloud, shall not be infringed.Constitutional Amendment #15: Presidential Line Item VetoSome state governors have had this line-item veto power, and if the President had it too, there might be a bit less pork in the Congressional bills that actually passes into becoming law.Constitutional Amendment #16: English Language AmendmentEnglish is the official language of the United States, and the immigration policy of the United States shall include a preference for those who can write and speak proficiently in English, whether as a native language or as an alternate language.Constitutional Amendment #17: Electoral College Reform AmendmentThe quantity of electors assigned to each state shall be apportioned in accordance with the population of the recognized United States citizenry who have official residence within such a state, rather than in accordance with the population of the inhabitants of such a state.Constitutional Amendment #18: Universality of Federal Legislation AmendmentNeither shall any law passed by Congress, nor shall any regulation of any department or agency of the federal government, exempt from its provisions the Vice President, the President, Congress, or any Member of Congress. Any part of an existing law that exempts Congress or any Member of Congress is rendered void.Constitutional Amendment #19: Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial reviewConstitutional Amendment #20: Define a deadline to file taxesSome folks might propose “one day before the next federal election” as the proper time for this deadline.Constitutional Amendment #21: Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and reviewConstitutional Amendment #22: Create a more specific definition of the Commerce ClauseConstitutional Amendment #23: Limit eminent domain powersConstitutional Amendment #24: Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing CongressConstitutional Amendment #25: Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal lawsConstitutional Amendment #26: Require photo ID to vote and limit early votingSection #1: Every state and the District of Columbia shall require photo identification as a requirement for voting both early and on the day of the elections.Section #2: Credit cards, social security cards, proof of residence which does not include a photo of the voter, and personal acquaintance with election poll staff shall not qualify as valid identification for any general election.Section #3: Each state in the United States shall provide a means for a state-issued photo ID available at no financial cost for all legal adults who can demonstrate their United States citizenship and their residence in that particular state. That photo ID shall not be a driver’s license.Section #4: Early voting shall be limited.Constitutional Amendment #27: No Failure to purchase penalties[3]Neither the federal government, nor state governments, nor local governments shall make any law, executive order, or regulation that imposes any tax penalty of any kind on a failure to purchase insurance, goods, or other services.Constitutional Amendment #28: No Popular Vote Override of Electoral CollegeSection 1: No state of the United States shall apportion its electoral college members or their votes thereof in any Presidential election strictly on the basis of the candidate who obtained the popular vote on the national level.Section 2: Each state shall apportion its electoral college members or the votes thereof in accordance with which candidate that the voters therein voted for in that Presidential election.Constitutional Amendment #29: Continuity of GovernmentSome would desire for a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the government by enabling us to replace members of Congress if there are “extensive deaths or incapacitation” or some sort of major war that does major damage to the United States and or its Congress.Constitutional Amendment #30: Federal Court Term LimitsSection #1: The maximum amount of time that any person may serve as a justice of the Supreme Court shall be fifteen years.Section #2: The maximum amount of time that any person may serve as a judge on any federal court other than the Supreme Court shall likewise be fifteen years.Constitutional Amendment #31: Mandatory Retirement Ages of SCOTUSSection #1: Congress shall have the authority to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, by proper legislation.Section #2: Such a retirement age may be revised by Congress by additional Congressional legislation.———————————————————Bibliography: Some of These Ideas Can Be Found HereFrank, Steve. “The Top 10 Amendments That Haven't Made It Yet.” Constitution Daily: Smart Conversation from the National Constitution Center. 14 Oct. 2010. The top 10 amendments that haven't made it (yet). Accessed 13 Nov. 2018. Web.Levin, Mark. The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. 2013.Morgan, Richard. “Sixteen Good, Bad, and Insane Ideas for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.” The New Republic. 22 Aug. 2013. Sixteen Good, Bad, and Insane Ideas for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018. Web.New York Times Staff. “If You Could Amend the Constitution.” New York Times. 7 July 2018. Opinion | If You Could Amend the Constitution. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018. Web.Sabato, Larry. “23 Proposals to Revitalize the US Constitution.” A More Perfect Constitution. A More Perfect Constitution, by Larry J. Sabato. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018. Web.[1] This Constitutional Amendment comes largely out of the anxiety that the Equal Protection Clause could be construed differently in future years by the Supreme Court.[2] This penalty reflects a Warren Buffet sort of approach in which the penalty for failing to have a reasonably balanced budget is ineligibility for re-relection.[3] This is a modified form of the Rubio Amendment, proposed by Marco Rubio in light of Obamacare.

Original question: “What is something in the U.S. Constitution interpreted differently than the founders probably intended?”Best example: The Fifth Amendment’s “Takings” clause. Here’s something I wrote when the Kelo v. New London case was being decided by the Supreme Court: Slouching Towards DespotismSCOTUSblog reports on today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. For some background, the Kelo case is about the abuse of eminent domain law, where the government takes property from individual citizens. I've covered several cases of eminent domain abuse, but this one's a doozy. CNN's Money site has a good background story on the case.Wilhelmina Dery, 87, was born in her century-old house near the Thames River.Her son, Matt, and daughter-in-law, Suzanne, live next door with their teenage son, Andrew. Among their most precious possessions: the garden planted by Matt's grandmother, and the kitchen doorway where they've charted Andrew's height over the years.The Derys' neighbors have their own, similar stories.Bill Von Winkle bought his first building in the neighborhood 20 years ago, and went to work making sandwiches in the downstairs deli and renovating the upstairs apartments.Susette Kelo meticulously restored her small pink Victorian house.So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.Their property, they said, is not for sale.In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.(Emphasis mine.) Read the whole thing.At issue is the Fifth Amendment's takings clause:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.But in this case, it isn't being taken "for public use." It's being taken from one private party, and it's being given (or sold) to another private party on the grounds that "boosting tax revenue" constitutes "public use." No it doesn't. It constitutes enriching the government coffers.As you can imagine, I consider this to be an extreme abuse of the Constitution. In the parlance of "slippery slopes," eminent domain was first abused back in the 50's when "urban renewal" was big. The case of Berman v. Parker was the first suit. It challenged the The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. The Supreme Court found:The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes.(a) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia includes all the legislative powers which a state may exercise over its affairs.(b) Subject to specific constitutional limitations, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation enacted in the exercise of the police power; and this principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved.(c) This Court does not sit to determine whether or not a particular housing project is desirable.(d) If Congress decides that the Nation's Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.(e) Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear.(f) Once the public purpose has been established, the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine.(g) This Court cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of a community redevelopment project; and it is not beyond the power of Congress to utilize an agency of private enterprise for this purpose or to authorize the taking of private property and its resale or lease to the same or other private parties as part of such a project.(h) It is not beyond the power of Congress or its authorized agencies to attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. Redevelopment of an entire area under a balanced integrated plan so as to include not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power.(i) The standards contained in the Act are sufficiently definite to sustain the delegation of authority to administrative agencies to execute the plan to eliminate not only slums but also the blighted areas that tend to produce slums.(j) Once the public purpose is established, the amount and character of the land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislature.(k) If the Redevelopment Agency considers it necessary in carrying out a redevelopment project to take full title to the land, as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located thereon, it may do so.(l) The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive the just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.Note the repeated reference to "slums" and "blighted areas." The justification for the land-grab was "urban renewal" - the elimination of slums and "blighted areas" which was a public good, but not necessarily public use. And this decision justified selling property taken under eminent domain to other private parties.Yet the Fifth Amendment is pretty explicit in its call for "public use."This decision was followed by Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, in which the State of Hawaii used eminent domain to take large lots of land from their private owners, then break up those lots and sell the pieces to the tenants living on them. But because the original owner got "just compensation," this theft was made legal.First step down the slippery slope: "Urban renewal of blighted areas and slums" as justification.Second step down the slippery slope: "Fair redistribution" as justification.Third step down the slippery slope: "Boosting tax revenue" as justification.SCOTUSblog reports:Marty (Lederman) reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today's property rights cases overwhelmingly.In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O'Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn't presented in Kelo, but the Court's opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.In Lingle, it appears that the government will win unanimously. As Justice Scalia put it at argument, the Court may have to "eat crow" and abandon the suggestion it has made in several cases that there is a "substantially advances" test for what constitutes a taking.(Lingle refers to Lingle, Linda (Hawaii Gov.), et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., which is being heard simultaneously.)Professor Bainbridge comments on the case, quoting The Economist:Put simply, cities cannot take someone's house just because they think they can make better use of it. Otherwise, argues Scott Bullock, Mrs Kelo's lawyer, you end up destroying private property rights altogether. For if the sole yardstick is economic benefit, any house can be replaced at any time by a business or shop (because they usually produce more tax revenues). Moreover, if city governments can seize private property by claiming a public benefit which they themselves determine, where do they stop? If they decide it is in the public interest to encourage locally-owned shops, what would prevent them compulsorily closing megastores, or vice versa? This is central planning.That's exactly right. You and I can see that, but through the miracle (snort!) of stare decisis, SCOTUS appears to have backed itself into a corner where it cannot admit that fact, even if it wanted to - and my guess is that at least four if not more justices wouldn't want to anyway. They like central planning.Re-read that excerpt from the Berman decision; "If Congress decides that the Nation's Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way." If that's not an endorsement of central planning, I don't know what it is.Francis Porretto wrote last year in his piece No Law Abridging that when the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold (Incumbent Protection) Finance Reform Act:(T)hen two days ago, the Supreme Court declared itself to be a lawless organ in service to a totalitarian State. The five Justices who voted to uphold the clearly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act placed their notions of “compelling government interest” and “the good of society” above the Supreme Law Of The Land, which for two centuries it has been the Court’s sworn duty to safeguard.Let that thought sink in for a moment. Five Justices of the Supreme Court have abrogated the very contract from which their authority and responsibilities derive. There’s no room for hedging here. They didn’t just interpret an ambiguity in the Constitution in a way that, though novel, could be squared with the public meanings of words and the traditions of Constitutional law. They dropped the document in the mud and pissed on it.Well, they've gone about it more slowly with this select portion of the 5th Amendment, but they're about to unzip and let fly again, from all indications. I quoted Justice Scalia last year in This is NOT What I Wanted to Read:It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution--We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.He was not waxing enthusiastic about the idea.Francis also said this:A man is not free because he’s permitted to vote for his political masters. The subjects of the late, unlamented Soviet Union enjoyed that “right.” So did the subjects of Saddam Hussein.A man is not free because some portion of his earnings is still his to spend on a variety of attractive goods. Not if the government can punish him for choosing goods it has not approved.A man is not free because the long arm of the law has not yet descended on his neck. That’s more properly called a stay of execution.A man is free if, and only if, he has the unchallenged right to do as he damned well pleases with his life, his property, and with any other responsible, consenting adult, provided only that he respects the equal freedom of all other men.Yup. And it's pretty damned obvious that a man's right to do as he damned well pleases with his property no longer exists, either.Back when I wrote The Courts Will Not Save Us series I quoted Rev. Donald Sensing from the same week as Francis Porretto's piece:I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.I'm not blaming Bush. This is the result of literally decades of bad decisions, that because of stare decisis the Courts simply will not correct as we go slouching towards despotism.

Oh, goodie. I get to share something I wrote back when Kelo was being decided.Original question: “Given the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v New London, is it safe to say that private property rights are no longer respected in the United States?”Slouching Towards DespotismSCOTUSblog reports on today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. For some background, the Kelo case is about the abuse of eminent domain law, where the government takes property from individual citizens. I've covered several cases of eminent domain abuse, but this one's a doozy. CNN's Money site has a good background story on the case.Wilhelmina Dery, 87, was born in her century-old house near the Thames River.Her son, Matt, and daughter-in-law, Suzanne, live next door with their teenage son, Andrew. Among their most precious possessions: the garden planted by Matt's grandmother, and the kitchen doorway where they've charted Andrew's height over the years.The Derys' neighbors have their own, similar stories.Bill Von Winkle bought his first building in the neighborhood 20 years ago, and went to work making sandwiches in the downstairs deli and renovating the upstairs apartments.Susette Kelo meticulously restored her small pink Victorian house.So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.Their property, they said, is not for sale.In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.(Emphasis mine.) Read the whole thing.At issue is the Fifth Amendment's takings clause:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.But in this case, it isn't being taken "for public use." It's being taken from one private party, and it's being given (or sold) to another private party on the grounds that "boosting tax revenue" constitutes "public use." No it doesn't. It constitutes enriching the government coffers.As you can imagine, I consider this to be an extreme abuse of the Constitution. In the parlance of "slippery slopes," eminent domain was first abused back in the 50's when "urban renewal" was big. The case of Berman v. Parker was the first suit. It challenged the The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. The Supreme Court found:The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes.(a) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia includes all the legislative powers which a state may exercise over its affairs.(b) Subject to specific constitutional limitations, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation enacted in the exercise of the police power; and this principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved.(c) This Court does not sit to determine whether or not a particular housing project is desirable.(d) If Congress decides that the Nation's Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.(e) Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear.(f) Once the public purpose has been established, the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine.(g) This Court cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of a community redevelopment project; and it is not beyond the power of Congress to utilize an agency of private enterprise for this purpose or to authorize the taking of private property and its resale or lease to the same or other private parties as part of such a project.(h) It is not beyond the power of Congress or its authorized agencies to attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. Redevelopment of an entire area under a balanced integrated plan so as to include not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power.(i) The standards contained in the Act are sufficiently definite to sustain the delegation of authority to administrative agencies to execute the plan to eliminate not only slums but also the blighted areas that tend to produce slums.(j) Once the public purpose is established, the amount and character of the land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislature.(k) If the Redevelopment Agency considers it necessary in carrying out a redevelopment project to take full title to the land, as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located thereon, it may do so.(l) The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive the just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.Note the repeated reference to "slums" and "blighted areas." The justification for the land-grab was "urban renewal" - the elimination of slums and "blighted areas" which was a public good, but not necessarily public use. And this decision justified selling property taken under eminent domain to other private parties.Yet the Fifth Amendment is pretty explicit in its call for "public use."This decision was followed by Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, in which the State of Hawaii used eminent domain to take large lots of land from their private owners, then break up those lots and sell the pieces to the tenants living on them. But because the original owner got "just compensation," this theft was made legal.First step down the slippery slope: "Urban renewal of blighted areas and slums" as justification.Second step down the slippery slope: "Fair redistribution" as justification.Third step down the slippery slope: "Boosting tax revenue" as justification.SCOTUSblog reports:Marty (Lederman) reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today's property rights cases overwhelmingly.In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O'Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn't presented in Kelo, but the Court's opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.In Lingle, it appears that the government will win unanimously. As Justice Scalia put it at argument, the Court may have to "eat crow" and abandon the suggestion it has made in several cases that there is a "substantially advances" test for what constitutes a taking.(Lingle refers to Lingle, Linda (Hawaii Gov.), et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., which is being heard simultaneously.)Professor Bainbridge comments on the case, quoting The Economist:Put simply, cities cannot take someone's house just because they think they can make better use of it. Otherwise, argues Scott Bullock, Mrs Kelo's lawyer, you end up destroying private property rights altogether. For if the sole yardstick is economic benefit, any house can be replaced at any time by a business or shop (because they usually produce more tax revenues). Moreover, if city governments can seize private property by claiming a public benefit which they themselves determine, where do they stop? If they decide it is in the public interest to encourage locally-owned shops, what would prevent them compulsorily closing megastores, or vice versa? This is central planning.That's exactly right. You and I can see that, but through the miracle (snort!) of stare decisis, SCOTUS appears to have backed itself into a corner where it cannot admit that fact, even if it wanted to - and my guess is that at least four if not more justices wouldn't want to anyway. They like central planning.Re-read that excerpt from the Berman decision; "If Congress decides that the Nation's Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way." If that's not an endorsement of central planning, I don't know what it is.Francis Porretto wrote last year in his piece No Law Abridging that when the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Finance Reform Act:(T)hen two days ago, the Supreme Court declared itself to be a lawless organ in service to a totalitarian State. The five Justices who voted to uphold the clearly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act placed their notions of “compelling government interest” and “the good of society” above the Supreme Law Of The Land, which for two centuries it has been the Court’s sworn duty to safeguard.Let that thought sink in for a moment. Five Justices of the Supreme Court have abrogated the very contract from which their authority and responsibilities derive. There’s no room for hedging here. They didn’t just interpret an ambiguity in the Constitution in a way that, though novel, could be squared with the public meanings of words and the traditions of Constitutional law. They dropped the document in the mud and pissed on it.Well, they've gone about it more slowly with this select portion of the 5th Amendment, but they're about to unzip and let fly again, from all indications. I quoted Justice Scalia last year in This is NOT What I Wanted to Read:It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution--We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.He was not waxing enthusiastic about the idea.Francis also said this:A man is not free because he’s permitted to vote for his political masters. The subjects of the late, unlamented Soviet Union enjoyed that “right.” So did the subjects of Saddam Hussein.A man is not free because some portion of his earnings is still his to spend on a variety of attractive goods. Not if the government can punish him for choosing goods it has not approved.A man is not free because the long arm of the law has not yet descended on his neck. That’s more properly called a stay of execution.A man is free if, and only if, he has the unchallenged right to do as he damned well pleases with his life, his property, and with any other responsible, consenting adult, provided only that he respects the equal freedom of all other men.Yup. And it's pretty damned obvious that a man's right to do as he damned well pleases with his property no longer exists, either.Back when I wrote The Courts Will Not Save Us series I quoted Rev. Donald Sensing from the same week as Francis Porretto's piece:I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.I'm not blaming Bush. This is the result of literally decades of bad decisions, that because of stare decisis the Courts simply will not correct as we go slouching towards despotism.That Alexander Tytler quote is sounding more and more prophetic every day.Does that answer your question, Howard Galt?