Kelo & Obamacare

[Flanders]

The House of Representatives took on eminent domain abuses:

State and local governments that use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development would lose federal funding for two years under legislation passed by the House on Tuesday.

House passes bill to fight unfair seizure of private property
by Audrey Hudson
02/29/2012

House passes bill to fight unfair takings of private property - HUMAN EVENTS

That’s not the same as permanent legislation protecting private property from eminent domain sharpshooters. It is a start. Should conservatives get enough seats in the Senate there is a chance permanent legislation, signed into law by the president, will come next. Hussein would veto such a bill. Add that to the reasons he has to go.

Remember, it was the Supreme Court that gave us Kelo? So there is every chance the SCOTUS would overturn any law that limits the government’s power to tax. Keep that in mind if you think the Supreme Court is going to overturn Hillarycare II. The High Court is an instrument of government. When taxation verses average Americans private sector Americans always lose:

Why is that important? Because while Congress lacks any power in the Constitution to take over the health care industry, it does have the power to tax. And if it can persuade the Court that the health care mandate is really just a valid exercise of the taxing power, then the chances go up that the Court will find ObamaCare constitutional. The logic of this situation is paradoxical:

ObamaCare: Supreme Court may postpone ruling till 2016
By Dean Clancy on February 21, 2012

ObamaCare: Supreme Court may postpone ruling till 2016 | FreedomWorks

It is logical to assume that postponing any ruling until 2016 will soften resistence. That is why it is imperative that Congress repeal the Affordable Care now even if it takes a veto-proof majority in both houses.

 

[Polk]

I find it odd that Kelo is so controversial, because it really only restated a previous ruling that had been unanimous (Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff).

 

[Flanders]

I find it odd that Kelo is so controversial, because it really only restated a previous ruling that had been unanimous (Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff).

To Polk: The case you cite was about taking land from the few and redistributing it among the larger population. Kelo was about taking land from anybody at anytime in order to enrich the few under the pretext of increasing a community’s tax revenues. The SCOTUS was wrong in both decisions.