Letters to the Editor
August, 2006
Most elected officials are required to take an oath to abide by the Constitution. It seems a logical step would be for all politicians to provide documentary proof that they have completed a comprehensive course on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If an immigrant must demonstrate that knowledge to become a citizen then, at the least, elected officials should possess that knowledge. This should also extend to a requirement that the course must be retaken every four years as it seems that most (elected officials) have forgotten, if they ever knew it at all. This should be particularly applicable to Judges at all levels, including, and especially the members of the Supreme Court.
Chuck Wood
Sanford, FL
I agree with the author that Measure 37 is dangerous but not because it "preys in the name of property rights". Measure 37 is dangerous because it locks in the beauracratic theft of property by virtue of establishing, in effect, a statute of limitattions for application of the Measure's protection. Also the rights protected by Measure 37 are lost upon sale. At best Measure 37 could be described as protective for the establishment of an aristocracy - not protective of the principals of free enterprise.
Below is a recent email I sent to a Sonoma County resident warning activists in her County of the pitfall of Measure 37.
"Ballot Measure 37 adds a new statute to ORS chapter 197. As specified in the measure, the owner of private real property is entitled to receive just compensation when a land use regulation is enacted after the owner or a family member became the owner of the property if the regulation restricts the use of the property and reduces its fair market value." From Measure 37 web site.
The problem with this statement is that land rights are determined to run with a person and not with the land. Under Measure 37 property rights are but a sale away from extinguishment. This is why I view measure 37 as nothing more than a slowed death keel for freedom.
The point is that property rights must run with the land not simply for the benefit of historic ownership.
Michael Shaw
Indeed, the American people do not have the determination, as you put it, to defeat this "enemy" you talk about.Let me be very short but to the point. Thank God there are people like me, that try and stop people like you, from butchering our young people in war upon war. The American people are smarter than you (elitists) think. Get out of the Mideast, become energy independent, become strong by getting our affairs together in this country by controlling our borders and putting America first. Become independent of any foreign country period.
War! There will always be wars, and wars elitist want the American people to fight and die for. I say bunk to you all. My kids and myself will not die in your wars if people like me, and there are a lot of us, say screw the warmongers.
Bill Schroder
Bill, you are free to express your thoughts only because our brave young people have died in wars that you are unwilling to fight. Had your father's generation been dominated by people like you, your letter would have been written in Japaneese, or German - and you would have gone to jail - or worse - if you dared make your thoughts public.
Your world view is exceedingly shallow. It is, indeed, sad that you, and so many of your cohorts have become a major obstacle to victory.
Are you working on any plan to get your message out to more Americans? Since the mainstream media won't publish a word about this unconstitutional treaty, and its working groups that are setting up the institutions that will later be empowered as the working bureaus of the new North American Union government, someone ought to get as many Americans as possible alerted to this danger.
Can, for instance, members of conservative organizations all be alerted to some meeting or other, that will coordinate some activity like a march on a newspaper, to protest its silence on this issue? It seems to me that the elite have no problem getting many large protests going, to make a point. Can't conservative patriots do the same thing? We only have until 2010 to get this thing stopped, and maybe not even that long. I've seen estimated completion dates as early as the end of 2007.
Best regards,
Eugene Keech
Moreno Valley, CA
Apparently, conservatives can't assemble significant crowds to protest. When they try, the liberals often stage counter protests to demean the conservatives. Consider what happened to the conservatives who ralied in support of theMinute Men along the border. Counter protests assembled to label them as "racists," which the media were only too happy to amplify.
Why don't you organize a rally to do the things you suggest in your town. Perhaps you will have better luck.
"Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made."
It couldn't be any clearer than this. Patrick Henry said: "the Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people, but an instrument for the people to restrain the Government". So for those of us who look to restrain Government, we find solace in our Constitutions. But if WE THE PEOPLE can't get politicians to follow the Constitution, then we must resort to another right we have in our State Constitution under Article II, Sections 1(a) and (b), the right of initiative and referendum. Thus, as was the case in Oregon, after 30 years of environmental assault on property rights, Ballot Measure 37 was passed by 61% of the voters and was unanimously upheld by the Oregon State Supreme Court. Washington landowners, under the same relentless assault on their property rights by environmentalists and government, had no other recourse but to draft and file I-933, the Property Fairness Initiative.
For over 30 years, government has been taking our private property by ordinance, and yet in a "Fifth Amendment" treatise by State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/1997), he writes that:
"Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right." "The framers of the Constitution intended to protect property rights which are worth protecting; not mere empty titles . . . among those elements is, fundamentally, the right of use . . . ")
Even a layman can understand that when use is severely restricted or "taken", ownership becomes a barren right. If property ownership is a barren right, then private citizens have no right to own property. If the private citizen has no right to own property, then it follows that Government "owns" all property.
We believe that Initiative I-933 will go a long way towards holding politicians accountable to our State Constitution. We fully expect that I-933 will qualify for the November 2006 ballot and pass handily, in spite of what the environmental community will come up with to defeat it. I-933 is long overdue.
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
Issaquah, WA
Paula Moore
San Antonio, TX
Tom DeWeese. As for Arlen Specter, politicians have a problem with the truth and are not to be trusted in plain sight. Term limits is the only thing that might cure our ills. Incumbents and electronic voting are the problem. The hanging chad was the answer to an incumbent prayer, because they had electronic voting waiting in the wings, with the help of the media they are shoving it down our throats, ask my friend Bruce Funk in Emory County Utah. One fed up WW 2 Vet.
Fred Kossow
Gridley, CA
Comment on this article | Printer friendly version