j8ear

I'd like to piggy back on this notion if I may. It seems, especially recently with two SCOTUS confirmation hearings and lots of talk about the principle of stare decisis (latin for: to stand by that which is decided) that this gets lost in some some mythical reverence for a principle for no other reason that it is written in Latin???

I submit, purely from observation, that because of the principle of stare decisis, that there is no issue which would not be decided in favor of the government or in favor of curtailing the people's rights.

Here are some notable exceptions:

1. Interstate commerce can include activity which is neither interstate or commercial in nature.

2. Public purpose for need of imminent domain reasoning can include the redistribution of property from one private entity to another private entity based on the reasoning that the larger tax revenues possibly generated by the new private entity is a public purpose.

3. The notion of "compelling government interest" (even when claimed on the flimsiest of evidence) seems to trump every constitutionally gauranteed right.

4. Political speech can be curtailed simply because the people attempt to hold elected incumbants accountable.

Essentially I believe that no matter what the constitution gaurantees, if this interfere's with the government's ability to do what ever it wants, those gaurantees are tossed aside.

Smooth, you are right, we get the government we deserve as we vote for who it contains. Unfortunately for us, the foolish decisions we have made, the excpetions we have permitted and the unaccountability we have created, are in my opinion beyond reversal. Particularly since the very people we have elected, have done many things not in the interest of the people they serve, but in their own egotistical self preserving interest.

Imagine someone like Senator Kennedy, elected with out qualification or accomplishment, except for perhaps name recognition, and unimaginable inherited wealth, bestowed by the election with even more wealth, semi-celebrity status, and more then likely unaccountable for his own disgusting moral lapses, being lauded by the intelligensia as someone who has dedicated his life to the public good by virtue of his life long sacrifice. This notion freightens me.

Were do we draw the line? Since it has been happening for decades, perhaps even centuries, does that make it right? Are we beyond the point of no return? Is a revolution the only way to take back our freedoms? Are we no longer allowed to feel revulsion or express dissent because this is "nothing new?" Is a straw which breaks the camel's back a point which has no validity?

DK, I appreciate your postings, and frankly applaud your enthusiasm. Please keep up the good work.

As a quick reiteration of ~my~ opinion, regardless of precendent, compelling government interest, immigration status, the needs of a tightly budgeted law enforcement agency, or the sounds and smells of his story, taking this completely innocent man's money is theft. IT is theft of the worse kind because it is the government stealing from the people.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.