Apparently the supreme court has now decided that they can rewrite the constitution by fiat. The recent decision by a narrow majority allowing various government entities to take away your property, or mine, and give it to any commercial or other enterprise that seems to suit the notion of the moment is clearly not anything like what the founding fathers intended, nor what the various states intended when they ratified the 4th and 5th Amendments. As a reminder, the 4th Amendment states (in part), "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." (Emphasis mine) This Amendment states in clear language that we citizens have a right to be secure in our homes unless there is just cause to infringe that right. I am confident that the authors of this amendment would never include building a new shopping center as "just cause." The 5th Amendment states (in part) , "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This amendment states right there in perfectly clear language that seized property must be for the use of the public. Roads, municipal buildings, libraries, parks, etc. Not for the generation of taxes or the temporary beautification of a certain area, nor for the use of a private business or corporation. It is also clear from a reading of the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Amendments that each of them is based primarily on a concern for, and for the benefit of, the people. Not the various government entities, not the corporations, not the businesses -- the people. How could this be made more clear than in the phrase, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people?" so eloquently put by President Lincoln more than 80 years after the Declaration was signed.
Now, justices Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer have somehow come to the conclusion that "public use" means "whatever any government entity wants to do right now." I must take strong exception to this, and state now my conviction that they are entirely wrong in their "interpretation" of the Constitution and Amendments in this instance. So obviously wrong, in fact, that I have to wonder if they are corrupt.
Now, by copy of this letter, I am asking my U.S. Congressmen and Senators to draft and introduce new Amendments to:
Spell out in plain terms that the various governments may not confiscate the property of any citizen for any reason except those that are permanent, certain, and necessary for the common good of the collective populace that elected them, and that the title of any land so taken must reside with the government that takes it, and that the use of the land shall not be principally for the monetary benefit or use of any other person or legal entity.
Establish a term limit - or mandatory retirement age - for supreme court justices. At least then we would know the limits of the harm that might be done by a corrupt or obdurate court.