Friday, June 24, 2005

So...What Do You Think of Our Living and Breathing Constitution Now?

Do you get it now, lefties?

This case should serve as a whack upside your head with a 2 by 4 (made of an especially hard wood - like cherry, or something like that). We keep telling y'all about government by judicial fiat. We've warned you of the dangers of constantly reinterpreting language and redefining words in the Constitution to make it accede to your desired results. But you kept on shouting empty epithets back at us like "interests of justice" (as if you know what that word means) and "independent judiciary" as arguments against our concern with an imperial court unbound by the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

What do you say now, oh defenders of the "little people"?

Let's take a brief look at how the Court, or rather the moonbat wing of the Court, animated the Constitution this time.

The 5th amendment provides:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Got that? Wait, let me add emphasis:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now, a Scalia would read this as the authors of the Constitution meant it: private property may be taken only if it is for a public use, and just compensation is paid (of course, Scalia would have put it much more eloquently, and would not have used the passive voice). This is unquestioned and has precedential roots that are over 100 years old. The court's malfeasance lies in how it defines a "public use":

It's a land use that creates more property tax revenue than the current use - even if the ultimate owner of the taken land is a private company (not "corporation" - another word that moonbats have no clue as to its meaning).

Do you believe that's what the takings clause means when it says "public use"?

Of course you don't. You may be a moonbat but you're not stupid brain dead.

Aw hell. It doesn't matter. They may take your house so that Krispy Kreme can build a new store, but at least you still have your precious "independent judiciary". So it's all good, right?

No comments: