Legal Land Theft and the Supreme Court

Paul David Collins ©, Sept. 2nd, 2005

When a student is introduced to the subject of American political science, the three branches of the national government is one of the first topics explored. The student is taught that the judicial branch’s primary task is to interpret the law. It was for this purpose that the Supreme Court was created. In June of 2005, a Supreme Court ruling in Kelo versus New London, a case concerning the issue of eminent domain, drastically redefined the Court’s role in national politics. CNN’s Parija Bhatnagar reported the following concerning the Supreme Courts ruling:

The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation’s biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

Retailers such as Target, Home Depot and Bed, Bath & Beyond have thus far managed to keep the “eminent domain” issue under the radar — and sidestep a prickly public relations problem — even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn’t always easily found.

Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a “public use,” such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.

Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.

The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private and public economic development. (No pagination)

The Court’s actions in this particular case make it painfully obvious that the justices have become little more than politicians in robes. Do not be deceived. Supreme Court nominees are no longer chosen based on their judicial philosophy. It is naive to believe that a potential nominee is called into the Oval Office by the President and asked whether he or she is a proponent of judicial activism or judicial restraint. A simple question is posed to the nominee: “Are you willing to dance?” Eager to ascend up the political ladder, the nominee will invariably answer in the affirmative. So the Supreme Court is now made up of justices dancing to a political tune. This leads to the next question: “Who is calling the tune?”

The answer to the above question is disturbing. If property can be taken away from the people for private economic development, then that means the government is giving preferential treatment to private forces. Those private forces would be correctly labeled an aristocracy. The Supreme Court has been prostituted out to the Power Elite for the purpose of transforming the Republic into an oligarchy.

The Kelo versus New London ruling will help preserve the blueblood tradition of stealing the commoners’ lands in the name of profit. This is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. In fifteenth century England, major landowners began fencing in common land. Originally, those lower down the economic food chain used these lands as tilling and grazing grounds. All of that had changed by 1600. Major landowners had enclosed one-eighth of England’s arable land (Chambers et al. 474).

In the eighteenth century, notions and concepts of democratic institutions and representative, constitutional republicanism began to be popularized. With this rise in popularity, the masses began to breathe easy, believing Olympian delirium had finally been expunged. Perhaps now the common person would enjoy the property rights as well. After all, two of the inalienable rights recognized by America’s Founding Fathers were the right to liberty and property. This meant that man had an inalienable right not only to produce, but also to keep that which he produced. One’s incentive to be productive comes from these two rights.

However, the plight of the Native Americans painfully illustrates the fact that the bluebloods’ tradition of land theft was far from over. As Dr. James W. Wardner points out in The Planned Destruction of America: “It was the privately owned railroads which initially worked with the government to steal Indian land and water. Now it’s the privately owned oil conglomerates and agribusinesses” (150-151). Wardner explains how this was accomplished:

Through a number of “Leasing Acts,” the federal government through the secretary of the interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been authorized to lease public and Indian lands and mineral rights to private corporations (MNCs). By 1973 the federal government had leased 680,854 acres of public land and 258,754 acres of Indian land, containing over 20 billion tons of coal to approximately fifteen multinational oil companies.

Through the Dawes Allotment Act of 1887, 38 million acres were stolen outright from the North American Indians by the government. As if that wasn’t enough, Indian landowners were forced to sell an additional 23 million acres between 1887 and 1934 because of inability to pay their taxes and mortgage payments. By 1934 the Indians has lost nearly two-thirds of their land or 90 million acres! (149)

Whites and other Americans that were not of Native American descent were able to brush off these crimes because they were largely unaffected by such land theft. Social engineering has programmed the majority of Americans to reside strictly in their belly buttons, unmoved by injustice so long as they go unharmed. With Kelo versus New London, the debt collector has finally come knocking at our doors and it is now our turn to pay.

Fortunately, there has been some movement in the right direction. Shortly after the decision in Kelo came down, over 40 states began taking steps to limit their general policing power as it pertains to property seizures. However, this can only be considered a starting point. What is needed now are Supreme Court Justices who are unwilling to prostitute themselves out to the Power Elite. Blocking the confirmation of Bush’s current nominee, John G. Roberts, would certainly begin to reverse the trend.

Many conservatives within the controlled conservative movement have misidentified Roberts as one of their own. Nothing could be further from the truth. Roberts has backed several authoritarian measures that would aid the Power Elite in transforming America into an oligarchy. One such measure was his proposal for the establishment of a national ID card, ostensibly to fight illegal immigration. In USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Tony Locy reported the following:

When he worked in the Reagan White House in 1983, John Roberts made the case for a national ID card, saying in a memo that it would help address the “real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration.” (No pagination)

The two journalists explored the rationale behind Robert’s proposal:

“I recognize that our office is on record in opposition to a secure national identifier, and I will be ever alert to defend that position,” Roberts wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding on Oct. 21, 1983. “I should point out, however, that I personally do not agree with it. I yield to no one in the area of commitment to individual liberty against the spectre of overreaching central authority, but view such concerns as largely symbolic as far as a national ID card is concerned.”

Roberts said the USA already had “for all intents and purposes, a national identifier – the Social Security number.” A national ID would not “suddenly mean constitutional protections would evaporate and you could be arbitrarily stopped on the street and asked to produce it.” (No pagination)

Robert’s support of authoritarian measures did not end with his days in the Reagan White House. His action in July 2005 show that he is still a long way off from walking the straight and narrow. William Grigg elaborates:

Roberts participated in a July 15 decision by a panel from the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Bush administration’s claim that the president can designate any individual as an “enemy combatant” and detain that individual indefinitely. The July 15 decision also assented to the administration’s claim that the president can create special military tribunals to conduct trials of enemy combatants, rendering decisions that are not subject to judicial review of any sort. (No pagination)

It is obvious that behind Robert’s clean-cut conservative mask hides a proponent of oligarchy. Moreover, the democrats cannot be expected to save us from him. When the democrats started using the filibuster to block the President’s nomination, Senate majority leader William Frist proposed the “nuclear option”. The “nuclear option” was a call for a vote to do away with the filibuster. With the republicans dominating both the House and the Senate, elimination of the filibuster was almost guaranteed. This led to the “Gang of 14”, which was a group of fourteen senators, coming together and reaching a compromise. Democrats promised not to use the filibuster unless there were “extraordinary circumstances”. A clear and concise definition of “extraordinary circumstances” was never presented.

Charles Schumer has done a good job at talking tough when it comes to the Roberts nomination. However, it should be noted that good ole Chucky has never been on our side. Schumer showed his authoritarian propensities when he lumped all members of citizen militias into a criminal category. While there are some shady characters in the militia movement, there are also many law-abiding citizens who correctly fear the rise of a garrison state. The senator also shamefully sided with the ATF against the Branch Davidians during the time of the Waco atrocity. Schumer’s threats of releasing the dogs of war on Roberts is merely a publicity stunt to convince his supporters that he fought hell and high water for their interest. Behind closed doors away from the media’s eye, Roberts and Schumer are merely Establishment kissing cousins.

Grass roots opposition is what is called for here. Instead of relying on a well-dressed politician who promises the world and delivers absolutely nothing, Americans should voice their sentiments for themselves. If the majority of Americans were heard through petitions, letters, and phone calls to their representatives, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate would have no choice but to be receptive. In the very least, they will realize they are no longer dealing with an ignorant and indolent public.

Sources Cited

• Bhatnagar, Parija. “Eminent domain-A big box bonanza?” CNN 24 June 2005.
• Biskupic, Joan and Tony Locy. “Roberts argued for ID Card, against women’s rights act.” USAToday, 18 August 2005.
• Chambers, Mortimer et al. The Western Experience Volume B: The Early Modern Era. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003.
• Grigg, William Norman. “The Roberts Nomination: Presidential Power Uber Alles.” The New American 20 July 2005.
• Wardner, Dr, James W. The Planned Destruction of America. DeBary, Florida: Longwood Communication, 1994.

About the Author

Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he completed his Associate of Arts and Science degree. He is working to complete his Bachelor’s degree, with a major in Communications and a minor in Political Science. Paul has authored another book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11. Published in November 2002, the book is available online from www.1stbooks.com, barnesandnoble.com, and also amazon.com. It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format (ISBN 1-4033-6799-X).He also co-authored the book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, which is available online here.