the supremes ... GODLESS COMMIES?!

The Supremes I have in mind have nothing to do with the Motown sound or young African American female vocal groups. Likely enough, what their former lead chanteuse, Diana Ross, knows about Marxism can be carved in granite, and then shoved up a flea's ... nose, comfortably.
By now, it's gotta be obvious that I mean the justices, who together constitute the Supreme Court of the United States.

It's rather ironical. For about five generations, the Communist Party U.S.A has labored mightily to bring about their so-called "workers' paradise". So far, the end result of all their labor and suffering has been "goose egg".

And then it happened ... like a bolt out of the blue. The capitalism those "godless commies" have for so long tried to demolish has been injected with slow but sure poison.

Our Supreme Court has opened the way to communist governance. Talk about the People's Republic of Santa Monica!

Ruling five-to-four, the Court did it with a decision that, at first glance, could be, in a certain light, considered reasonable. After all, reasonable people have been known to disagree.

In my considered opinion, a principle is worth only what has been sacrificed in its defense. A principle is obviated, once and for all, the moment the capacity for its defense is suspended to benefit a special interest at the expense of the general welfare, both current and future.

. . . yeah, that last sentence is elongated . . . maybe, the average reader should considered reading it a second time, or even a third time.

In the instance that adumbrates an eventual Marxist America, the obviated principle in question was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. According to alleged "strict constructionists", it prohibits the taking of property by government, except for "public use". In this instance, the five-to-four ruling I have in mind deals with eminent domain.

Here's how eminent domain works. Whatever government that has jurisdiction over somebody's private property may seize that property, by paying whoever owns it the "fair market" value, and then convey it over to public use.

Here's an example. A city government may seize an empty lot, by paying its owner "fair market" value, and then have a public hospital built on that lot. So far, such a seizure is hardly likely to ignite controversy.Here's how our Supreme Court has set us trudging along "the road to serfdom".

My five doughnuts to somebody's three that the guy, who is being quoted, is rotating in his grave ... furiously. The relevant government may now seize private property, again by paying whoever owns it "fair market" value, and then is perfectly free to convey it over to another private entity.

The justification for that government's doing so may be something like, say, increased tax revenues. Really, far more taxes are likely to be exacted from a strip mall than a goat farm.

Let's say that the People's Republic of Santa Monica seizes somebody's goat farm -- oh, for crying out loud, whyz.ache.err. Never mind what kind of goat farm would be within that municipality's limits.

Back to cases, the goat farm is shortly thereafter conveyed over to Divinely Anointed Heroic Capitalist Developers, who replace that noisome goat farm with a cute strip mall.

Let's suppose sometime later that the tax revenues fall a little short of what had been promised by Divinely Anointed Heroic Capitalist Developers. Here's the question. Would the People's Republic of Santa Monica then be within their rights to increase (?) the tax burden on Divinely Anointed Heroic Capitalist Developers to make up (!) for that shortfall.

In time, our Supreme Court of the United States will be called up to resolve that question. It's a good bet that Divinely Anointed Heroic Capitalist Developers will contest that increase in their tax burden.

Here's the implication of the "deal" between the People's Republic of Santa Monica and Divinely Anointed Heroic Capitalist Developers. In accepting that goat farm, even if the developers in question had paid that people's republic a fair price, they entered into partnership with the people's republic in question. Therefore, the dispute over the "enforced exaction" is a dispute between partners.

It gets worse. As a "DE FACTO" partner in this or that private enterprise, government may choose to participate in how that enterprise is managed. This goes beyond taxes and, say, health and safety regulations. Government might then express a preference for who should be, say, chief financial officer.

Here's the bottom line, my little chick-a-dees. The partner than can destroy the other partner is the senior partner. Aaaay, I think that bears repeating. The partner that can destroy the other partner is the senior partner. The other partner, being junior to the senior partner, is subservient to the senior partner.

. . . whyz.ache.err, ol'buddy, ya'gotta remember. "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Okay, there's somebody out there caviling. All the foregoing applies, only when real estate is involved.To that, I say, keep on believing that, you dum-- ...

Here's an example of possible robbery by eminent domain that was brought to my attention, some little while ago.

. . . oh, yeah, such a robbery has yet to happen, but there'll be no need for surprise, when it does . . .

Let's suppose that Misses Mom and Mister Pop own and manage a business that's devoted to fabricating certain intricate medical equipment. Their business is no giant conglomerate, nonetheless, Mom and Pop Fabricatory contributes significantly to the county's economy.

Now, let's suppose the concern's proprietors hold a patent on a method that facilitates the fabrication of that certain intricate medical equipment. Somehow, this method comes to the attention of mid-level management at Global Leviathan.

What's more, renovating one of their plants in Mexico for employing that method would increase profits to the point, where the employees would receive an extra whole nickel an hour.

Well, the lawyers for Global Leviathan try to license the patent from Mom and Pop, who would like to receive compensation that's something like the industry standard. Final result of negotiations . . . no deal.

So, the lobbyists in the employ of Global Leviathan call in some chits with several politicians. And in short order, the patent in question is seized by the government under "colour of eminent domain", and then turned over to Global Leviathan.

. . . oh, yeah, Mom and Pop do receive "fair market" compensation . . . is it even in the same ballpark (?) as industry standard . . . doan'bee an ass!

The point is this. The principle is obviated . . . the cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube . . . the jig is up . . ..

Eventually, this is how it'll work out. By simply allowing any private enterprise to exist, government acquires partnership in that enterprise.

eYep, gotta admit. Those of us, who respect without worshiping private enterprise, might consider that a gloomy prospect.

Ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, you might to consider reading my piece on "Constitutional Allegiance"

..FOOTNOTE -

When I was in teens and in lust with just every pretty teenybopper in Misses Zaharis' candy store, I could devour a science fiction novel a day. In one novel, I came across a quote from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

I believe it's quite apt for those capitalists, who would enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens through eminent domain.

Anyway, here it is, in all its splendor:.

"We eat and drink our own damnation."

. . . cool, is it not?

EPIMETHEAN COMMENT

After giving the matter some thought, I figure it's time I impart my attitude towards the coming marxist state. For that, I should like you, good Reader, to recall the few days of warning, before Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans.

Had I been imbecilic enough, I might've trudged up and down that city's Bourbon Street, carrying aloft a placard with the inscription, and I'm quoting, "say NO to katrina". Worse than folly, such conduct could've been construed as taunting the residents of New Orleans, and those along the Gulf coast.

Please allow me to assure you, dear Reader, nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, saw me, trudging up and down Bourbon Street, holding aloft just such a placard.

And for very similar reasons, nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, saw me trudging up and down the mall,which connects the White House and the Capitol, holding aloft a placard with the inscription, and I'm quoting, "say NO to the marxist state".

Really, one may as well say NO to water seeking its own level.

According to our best historians, Americans growing up, imbibing like mother's milk Thomas Jefferson's rhetoric. However, we Americans live in Alexander Hamilton's country. . . . oh, what a combination, we're gonna have . . .

Tom's rhetoric, Alex's country, Karl's state . . .

. . . oh, yeah, about the only thing that comes to mind, with regard to dealing successfully with that coming maxist state is embracing "EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICS" .

Anyway, I do delve a little into that subject with my "bubba da prez . . . " post

For my part, right now, somewhere in my mind's ear, Frankie Laine is singing the tune that introduced "RAW HIDE", a teevee "oat burner" that gave Clint Eastwood his start toward stardom.

" . . . just rope, throw and brand'em, raw hide . . .

Maybe, that's how the future marxist state gets roped, thrown and branded.

toodles
...../
.he who is known as sefton