Is there a such thing as property rights anymore?

Here is a good example of how many property owners have no rights to their land.

Most people have been fooled into thinking that property rights still exist, when the sad reality is they don't.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

And yet, ScottyP and others on the left keep saying this nation was not founded on Judea-Christian principles.....just read the last paragraph Fatbass posted.

Did those principles include owning other human beings (slaves) and burning human beings at the cross??

Just wonderin'

voiceofreason wrote:

Did those principles include owning other human beings (slaves) and burning human beings at the cross??

Just wonderin'

Are you that damn dumb, or are you just trolling?

Just wondering.........

So let me get this straight... Dudes buy a piece of property ZONED AS WETLANDS and now they are pissed that they cant build??? And its the big bad Govt's. and EPA's fault?? UH no liability on their behalf?? The title company or the real estate agent??

Hell I'd like to build a house on 7 mile creek at fishlake.. The land is for sale but I want to be able to cast a fly from the front deck to the waiting cut throat and brook trout. Ya think I'll get a building permit for that deal??

Look PROphylactic the same framers that wrote the constitution also wrote Article iv of that sumbitch!!! Whats not spelled out about the Federal Govt's. role??

voiceofreason wrote:

Look PROphylactic the same framers that wrote the constitution also wrote Article iv of that sumbitch!!! Whats not spelled out about the Federal Govt's. role??

Article IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Does this give the federal government the 'right' to issue warrant-less wiretaps, constant monitoring of emails, facebook posts, phone calls?

voiceofreason wrote:

So let me get this straight... Dudes buy a piece of property ZONED AS WETLANDS and now they are pissed that they cant build??? And its the big bad Govt's. and EPA's fault?? UH no liability on their behalf?? The title company or the real estate agent??

Did you actually LISTEN to the damn thing? If you did, you would have heard, SEVERAL TIMES, that the EPA has yet to offer up an evidence that the land is "ZONED AS WETLANDS". Are you really okay with a federal agency having a green light to issue orders of compliance, and citizens have no recourse? Really?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=87073307081410194&q=sackett+v.+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45&as_vis=1

So not only did they not have a permit, they also discharged pollutants and filled in over a half acre of land??


Yep they didn't break any laws

They filled in a foundation of a house that was standing there at one time, seems like a logical thing when wanting to build your dream home and wanting to start from scratch.

voiceofreason wrote:

Yep they didn't break any laws

What law exactly? not even the EPA knows

voiceofreason wrote:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=87073307081410194&q=sackett+v.+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45&as_vis=1

So not only did they not have a permit, they also discharged pollutants and filled in over a half acre of land??


Yep they didn't break any laws

I take back my labeling of you as a socialist, you are apparently much closer to a Marxist................

So I take it your above post of calling
Me a Marxist is your intelligent reply
To the points I made about these smart
Shoppers breaking multiple laws ??

voiceofreason wrote:

So I take it your above post of calling
Me a Marxist is your intelligent reply
To the points I made about these smart
Shoppers breaking multiple laws ??

What 'laws' did they break? The EPA has offered NO evidence of ANY. Their entire case in built on being able to do whatever they damn well want to. I have yet to see a instance where you have sided with the individual over the government, so what other conclusion can I come to about your views?

proutdoors wrote:

And yet, ScottyP and others on the left keep saying this nation was not founded on Judea-Christian principles.....just read the last paragraph Fatbass posted.

Couple things:

You referenced the declaration of independence and a couple of mentions of a 'creator' or 'divine providence' and that is your proof that we are founded on Judeo-christian principals? Gime me a break. Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence. He knew his audience was by and large people of faith and was playing to his audience. Read about Jefferson and you will quickly discover that he wrote a version of the new testament that removed all the divine miracles and 'magic' it contained because he did not believe in the supernatural claims made in the new testament. This is also the same Jefferson who wrote about a 'wall of seperation' between church and state.

The US Constitution makes no reference to Christianity in particular, and if you compare the ten commandments to the bill of rights, you will see that the bill of rights directly conflicts with the majority of the ten commandments. Was that just an oversight?

Our government and laws are based on an amalgamation of English common law, Roman governing practices, and enlightenment philosophers like Englishman John Locke, and our own enlightened deists like John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.

What I find truely amusing Pro, is when you call someone else a troll, yet you mention me by name in a thread I hadn't even posted in yet. Take a look in the fuggin' mirror troll. Guess I fell for it.

"What 'laws' did they break? The EPA has offered NO evidence of ANY. Their entire case in built on being able to do whatever they damn well want to."

NO BUILDING PERMIT would be the first broken law.

DISCHARGING POLLUTANTS would be #2

FILLING IN OVER HALF AN ACRE OF WETLAND would be #3

" I have yet to see a instance where you have sided with the individual over the government, so what other conclusion can I come to about your views?"

I have yet so see a time where you have sided with obeying the law.
Does this make you a criminal or an anarchist???

voiceofreason wrote:

"What 'laws' did they break? The EPA has offered NO evidence of ANY. Their entire case in built on being able to do whatever they damn well want to."

NO BUILDING PERMIT would be the first broken law.

DISCHARGING POLLUTANTS would be #2

FILLING IN OVER HALF AN ACRE OF WETLAND would be #3

" I have yet to see a instance where you have sided with the individual over the government, so what other conclusion can I come to about your views?"

I have yet so see a time where you have sided with obeying the law.
Does this make you a criminal or an anarchist???

Pinhead,

Do you ever actually read the references that you post? For instance, here is a quote from the Ninth Circuit case file:

Quote :

The compliance order alleged that the Parcel is a wetland subject to the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and that the Sacketts violated the CWA by filling in their property without first obtaining a permit.

You will notice the compliance order only alleges violations (law breaking). As of today, the EPA has NOT provided any proof of law breaking. You need to be a little more resourceful in your fact finding. There has been no determination made by any government agency that any laws have in fact been broken.

I found another quote in the case file that is disturbing to me as well. Here’s the quote:

Quote :

The chief problem with the CAA, as the Eleventh Circuit saw it, was that a compliance order could be issued by the EPA "on the basis of any information available" without any hearing, and that the CAA made civil and criminal penalties dependent on violations of compliance orders whether or not there was an actual violation of the CAA.

The Sacketts wanted the 9th Circuit to view the CWA in the same way. The 9th Circuit declined such an interpretation. So as I see it, the 9th Circuit doesn’t see a problem with the EPA issuing compliance orders that may, or may not, be based on an actual violation. What’s wrong with that picture Pinhead?

Now, here is the ruling of the 9th Circuit:

Quote :

In conclusion, we hold that it is "fairly discernable" from the language and structure of the Clean Water Act that Congress intended to preclude pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders issued by the EPA pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a)(3). We further interpret the CWA to require that penalties for noncompliance with a compliance order be assessed only after the EPA proves, in district court, and according to traditional rules of evidence and burdens of proof, that the defendants violated the CWA in the manner alleged in the compliance order. Thus we do not see any sharp disconnect between the process given a citizen and the likely penalty that can be imposed under the CWA. Under these circumstances, preclusion of pre-enforcement judicial review does not violate the Sacketts' due process rights. The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

You will kindly notice that nowhere in that conclusion is it stated that the Sacketts have violated (broken) any laws. Perhaps you have another source that can back up your claim that they have? Hmmmmmmmm?

voiceofreason wrote:

" I have yet to see a instance where you have sided with the individual over the government, so what other conclusion can I come to about your views?"

I have yet so see a time where you have sided with obeying the law.
Does this make you a criminal or an anarchist???

Name ONE law that I have advocated ignoring! I may not like MANY laws, and want them repealed, but that is different than advocating breaking laws. You act as if EVERY law is just/warranted, and to question ANY law makes one an anarchist.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-sides-with-private-property-owner-in-landmark-epa-case/

Quote :

“The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country.”

Principal Attorney Damien M. Schiff noted after the ruling,

“The EPA is not above the law.“ continuing on to say ” EPA will have to be prepared to show a reviewing court that its wetlands regulations are really necessary — not just a power trip.”

What now vor?

What do ya mean now what?? It will go to court and get squashed.

voiceofreason wrote:

What do ya mean now what?? It will go to court and get squashed.

And the forum Marxist celebrates.

And now finally we get to the Libertarian / Property Rights dilemma.

So the property Rightists and limited Govt. crew believe that, for the most part
Govt. should exist to make sure that their property rights are upheld.

Now we get to the hypocritical view of upholding only the Sackett's property rights at the expense of, the other property owners, the ecosystem that will be
affected by their disturbance / run off from their property.

So whose property rights are going to be defended in this case??

If I lived on that lake, in a properly zoned area and I knew that I'd be looking at
silt, mud, different water levels and dead fish on my beach do I have just as much right to defense as the Sacketts??

Bob were the Sacketts in compliance with the laws when they began hauling fill on to the property??

Simple question.