Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Its been a long time since I offered anything for these amendment topics. Truth be told, i'm quite disappointed in the apathy and complacency shown by alot of people with regards to how they feel quite comfortable about the infringement of these 'rights' by the government. After the discussion on the fourth amendment I was quite shaken at the acceptance of the 'reasonableness' of the lack of limits afforded the government and law enforcement as long as the encroachment wasn't widespread. anyway, on the the next one.



I started this today after reading This story, regarding the Kelo v. New London case that had the supreme court 5-4 in favor of local governments absconding private propert and turning it over to private developers and then calling that 'public use', to be defined the same as 'public benefit', because it would increase the amount of tax revenue to the city.


The US is supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy, where people have rights that can't be removed or abridged by 51% of the population. It reminds me of the analogy that 'democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner'. These people in New London had their constitutional and unalienable rights to property voted away by the majority of people in that city for 'economic revitalization' which should be completely unconstitutional and violently fought against.

I'm too angry right now to list the rest of it with cases so i'll leave that to others in this thread.