H
HagiaSophia
Guest
"…This is an issue that so incenses me that when the court ruling came down, I made a conscious decision not to address it. Yesterday, however, I received a letter in the mail from our local “Code Nazi” and decided I would address the issue after all. The code I violated was parking my car in the gravel beside my garage. It seems that I have been parking it there too long and it must be removed in three days or I will be slapped with a hefty fine. If I refuse to pay the fine, I will be arrested.
The biggest beef I have with the Supreme Court decision isn’t that the judges’ ruling but the fact that the people would allow such an issue to go that far. It isn’t the courts that have taken property rights from the people; it is the people who have given them to the courts.
In all the recent clamor about property rights I haven’t heard one person say anything about the most obvious part of this ruling. It didn’t begin with the Supreme Court. It began in small towns all across America. It began with the man who bought the house next door to yours decided your inadequate lawn service or the junky car in your driveway was driving down his property value.
It began when people, who already owned their houses and were already settled in their community, decided to keep other people from building and moving there. It began when residents of a community decided that a particular piece of property was historical so the owner of the property shouldn’t be allowed to build on it. It began with a selfish and blatant disregard for the property rights of others to advance our own personal interests. Now property owners are little more than glorified renters bowing to the whim of the all powerful government land baron.
On June 27th the Supreme Court made the news in another case when they rejected appeals from two reporters who were hoping to avoid jail time for not divulging their source in a story that involved a federal investigation. The media had hoped to overturn a previous court ruling that determined jailing a reporter for not revealing their source did not violate their first amendment right.
Rush Limbaugh commented on the case on his radio show Thursday. “The First Amendment hasn’t meant a whole lot lately,” said Limbaugh. “Campaign finance reform came along and limited the free speech of citizens and the media was all for that.”
He then made the point that when we start to tip toe on a persons rights we open the door to stomp all over them. I totally agree. That is why it came as such a shock to me when Rush took the opposite stand on property rights.
Back in April Rush briefed his audience on the city lighting ordinance imposed on his Florida property. In an effort to “save the turtles” the city passed a law that required beachfront homeowners to turn off their lights during certain hours. The problem Rush had with the situation wasn’t that he was being ordered by law to turn off his lights but the time of day the city had designated.
While I agree that we should do all we can as stewards of this earth to preserve nature, I am adamantly opposed to being forced to “save the turtles”, “save the whales”, “save the sidewalk” or anything else the government thinks I should save. A female caller on Rush’s show made the point that the residents should be able to choose to save the turtles instead of being coerced. Rush basically told the caller you can’t fight city hall. And that is my problem…
homemakersforamerica.com/cgi-bin/blog/index.cgi?mode=viewone&blog=1120239577
The biggest beef I have with the Supreme Court decision isn’t that the judges’ ruling but the fact that the people would allow such an issue to go that far. It isn’t the courts that have taken property rights from the people; it is the people who have given them to the courts.
In all the recent clamor about property rights I haven’t heard one person say anything about the most obvious part of this ruling. It didn’t begin with the Supreme Court. It began in small towns all across America. It began with the man who bought the house next door to yours decided your inadequate lawn service or the junky car in your driveway was driving down his property value.
It began when people, who already owned their houses and were already settled in their community, decided to keep other people from building and moving there. It began when residents of a community decided that a particular piece of property was historical so the owner of the property shouldn’t be allowed to build on it. It began with a selfish and blatant disregard for the property rights of others to advance our own personal interests. Now property owners are little more than glorified renters bowing to the whim of the all powerful government land baron.
On June 27th the Supreme Court made the news in another case when they rejected appeals from two reporters who were hoping to avoid jail time for not divulging their source in a story that involved a federal investigation. The media had hoped to overturn a previous court ruling that determined jailing a reporter for not revealing their source did not violate their first amendment right.
Rush Limbaugh commented on the case on his radio show Thursday. “The First Amendment hasn’t meant a whole lot lately,” said Limbaugh. “Campaign finance reform came along and limited the free speech of citizens and the media was all for that.”
He then made the point that when we start to tip toe on a persons rights we open the door to stomp all over them. I totally agree. That is why it came as such a shock to me when Rush took the opposite stand on property rights.
Back in April Rush briefed his audience on the city lighting ordinance imposed on his Florida property. In an effort to “save the turtles” the city passed a law that required beachfront homeowners to turn off their lights during certain hours. The problem Rush had with the situation wasn’t that he was being ordered by law to turn off his lights but the time of day the city had designated.
While I agree that we should do all we can as stewards of this earth to preserve nature, I am adamantly opposed to being forced to “save the turtles”, “save the whales”, “save the sidewalk” or anything else the government thinks I should save. A female caller on Rush’s show made the point that the residents should be able to choose to save the turtles instead of being coerced. Rush basically told the caller you can’t fight city hall. And that is my problem…
homemakersforamerica.com/cgi-bin/blog/index.cgi?mode=viewone&blog=1120239577
If they did half as much for humans we would be in good shape
