What was this? This ruling stated - what an American might otherwise assume is self-evident in this supposedly "free country" - that an arbitrary edict from the government, especially one rendering one's property worthless, can be challenged in court. In this case, that Mike and Chantell Sackett have the right to challenge the EPA, part of the Executive Branch of government, on its arbitrary declaration of their property as a "wetland," which rendered their property and life savings worthless - WITHOUT the due process rights and fair compensation for taken property guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
This EPA ruling, by the way, was notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, and next door neighbors being spared this designation. More on this later.
The Constitution of the United States, the highest law of the land, enumerates specific powers for the federal government, as well as puts limits on what the federal government may do.
Most people are familiar with the Constitution's 'Bill of Rights,' which is where the bulk of the limits on government are are stated, as well as stating that the individual rights and protections specifically stated there are not to be construed as the only individual rights and protections (Ninth Amendment).
What some people aren't as familiar with is the so-called 'Commerce Clause,' also known as Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The text:
[The Congress shall have Power] ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; which grants the federal government powers to regulate interstate commerce, international commerce, and commerce with Indian tribes.
The intent of the clause, especially the interstate piece, is to facilitate commerce, in other words, to make sure commerce could take place without impediments such as states passing laws that restrict commerce from other states, tariffs, taxes, duties, and such.
What it has been abused and perverted into, mostly starting during the Franklin D Roosevelt administration with Roosevelt's carefully chosen activist 'justices', is false granting of power to the federal government to do just about anything it wants. These courts used absurdly tortured arguments to claim such power, all of them boiling down to defining everything and anything as "interstate commerce" on the ridiculous premise that at some point, any given penny goes across state lines.
Of course, this violates not not only the enumerated powers contained in the rest of the Constitution, but also the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly holds the federal government to those enumerated powers, thus:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course, the FDR courts had an answer for that "inconvenient fact" as well, arrogantly and openly rejecting what the Constitution explicitly says in the Tenth Amendment. In United States v. Darby Lumber Company (1941), the Court outrageously claimed the Tenth Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.
Unbelievable?
Believe it, because in the federal government's application of this absurd and tyrannical "philosophy" things get very, very bad, liberty is usurped, commerce gets crushed, and lives get DESTROYED.
One of the first cases under this serial and ongoing gross violation of the Constitution and usurpation of powers not allowed the federal government is Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
In 1938, FDR and his Secretary of Agriculture got passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which set limits on wheat crop yields, in an attempt to control prices. The constitutionality of this act itself is highly questionable at best, but that's another story.
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted by AAA. But, the excess wheat was for his personal, family's, livestock's consumption, all on his personally-owned farm. This wheat never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce.
Nonetheless,
FDR's tyrants ordered Filburn
to destroy his crops and pay a fine.
Filburn took this to the local federal court, which ruled in his favor. However, FDR's thugs took the case to his stacked Supreme Court, which i
n a gross perversion of the definition of interstate commerce, ruled that Filburn, in using his own wheat for his own consumption, was foregoing buying wheat for his family and livestock, thereby "affecting interstate commerce," and thereby subject to the the AAA and the dictate of the FDR administration. In other words, FDR's Supreme Court bizarrely ruled that by not engaging in interstate commerce, he WAS engaging in interstate commerce, and thus subject to the edicts of the federal government.
This was only where the tyranny began. There have since been innumerable such cases and unconstitutional laws. Which brings us back to the Sackett family and the EPA.
In 2005, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a 0.63-acre lot near Priest Lake in Idaho for $23,000 on which they planned to build a home. They got all the required permits and environmental impact reports and began grading and construction. Adjacent to their property is a state-owned creek. The state had neglected to maintain the creek to the extent that during a rainstorm, debris clogged the creek and it overflowed its banks, flooding part of the Sackett's land. The Sacketts went to the state to get them to take care of it, where officials told them that the state wouldn't be able to do anything for awhile, and that they could clear it themselves. The Sacketts got a backhoe and cleared the debris, relieving the flood.
Noticing the state-caused flood the EPA came in and the Sacketts
were threatened by the EPA with $37,500 per day fines if they didn't restore their land to its previous condition, notwithstanding the permits and environmental impact reports they'd already gotten. When they tried to take this order to court, they found out that the law prevented them suing until the EPA enforced the order. In other words, they were prevented from using their property unless the EPA started the
$37,500 per day fines, and they were prevented from getting the order rescinded unless they took actions that would incur those $37,500 per day fines.
The Sacketts took the case to the Supreme Court with the help of the non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation. Yesterday, the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled in the Sackett's favor, meaning they CAN sue to get the EPA's absurd order rescinded. Mind you, this unanimous ruling included the far left members - THAT'S how bad the EPA is!
Every day, the EPA similarly destroys the assets and lives of countless people across the USA, in complete violation of Fifth Amendment protections of due process and fair compensation for taken property, all under non-existent powers claimed through false use of the commerce clause.
This same false premise is being used by the Obama administration to justify the federal government's intrusion into health care and forcing people to engage in commerce in the form of private individuals being forced to buy private insurance products that the federal government mandates to take a particular form.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will show the same sense and honesty with respect to the Constitution when it soon reviews the constitutionality of Obama's disastrous health care act.
You're losing your liberty, your freedom, and your future folks, all in return for crumbs. Wake up and take them back!
No comments:
Post a Comment