Supreme Court gives landowners big win in Florida case
6/25/13 By Curtis MorganThe U.S. Supreme Court gave the family of a Central Florida landowner – as well as property owners and developers across the state and country – a significant victory on Tuesday with a ruling that stands to make it tougher and more expensive for government agencies to protect the nation’s dwindling wetlands.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the court found that the St. Johns River Water Management District had imposed excessive demands on Coy Koontz Sr., who was denied a permit to build on a 15-acre plot outside of Orlando unless he offset or “mitigated” for paving over wetlands by restoring wetlands owned by the district several miles away.Koontz died several years ago but his son, Coy Koontz Jr., said the family was ecstatic at winning a land-use legal battle dating back nearly two decades and giving other landowners “a bigger stick” to fight similar cases in the future.“As my wife said, it certainly vindicates my father’s decision to take this fight on,” Koontz said during a media conference call organized by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a private property rights advocacy group that represented the family in the case.Foundation attorney Paul Beard said the ruling would help protect landowners and set a higher bar for government regulators. “Anyone who owns a home or business and wants to make use of it, they will no longer be subject to willy-nilly extortion demands from permitting agencies,” he said.But environmentalists, echoing dissenting justices, also warned that the ruling could weaken or undermine wetlands protection laws and other land-use regulations. Similar off-site “mitigation” agreements have long been an important tool for federal, state and local regulators trying to enforce a national “no net loss” of wetlands policy established by President George H. W. Bush in 1988.Article Continues at The Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/25/3470317/us-supreme-court-give...
- Permalink Reply by on
- A GOOD SITE HERE = http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- This Immigration bill like the ACA (obamacare) is totally backa$$ward to Article 1, Sec 7, which would make it UnConstitutional. However, even if passed it still has to go to the House. Majority Leader Boehner has already stated that he intends to make another bill involving the constituants of the elected Representatives...so my read is this Senate Bill will not even reach the House floor for a vote.....which it absolutely has to bave to make it law....please correct me if I am wrong or has this Congress, USSC and President gone so far as to ignore even a hint of legality on the making of Laws in this country.......semper fi fivers Article V project to restore liberty......
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is one opinion . . . but what the Senate does is to take a spending bill from the house [approved] The senate then strips out the entire bill and uses this black shell to send back to the house - this is what they did in the ACA . .Q125. "On the Checks and Balances Page, it says that a legislative check on the legislature is that onlythe House can originate revenue bills. I've been told that only the House can originate spending bills, too — is this true?"A. In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thanks Lock for your candid response. So in a nutshell it still comes down to what the USSC determines what is or is not Constitutional, a power they never possessed, yet have ursurped to the greater good of being a demigod of Constitutional purity......I know there are conservatives on present USSC but I would still consider them outside the boundery of Constitutional Restraint and Constitutional Law, and that includes C. Thomas, whom I respect greatly......semper fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is still the dance of the Nine Black Robes issuing edicts they have no Constitutional foundation form which to issue such OPINIONS [choices of the day like restaurants soup du jour] - neither of the M&M cases grant the powers stolen in each so they have a house built on cards that go to no foundation. divide that house and it will fall . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."-- Alexander Hamilton(1757-1804)Source: The Federalist No. 78.
"The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that."-- John Adams(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US PresidentSource: John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
"Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority.They are the self-imposed restraints of a whole peopleupon a majority of them to secure sober action anda respect for the rights of the minority."-- William Howard Taft(1857-1930) 27th US PresidentSource: Veto Message, Arizona Enabling Act, 1911
- Permalink Reply by on
Democrats: It’s the states, stupid!
- Permalink Reply by on
- This was a fun research find you might enjoy...
Helping to restore liberty by busting progressive myths about the Constitution.
Does the Federal Government have complete control over the States?
The Myth
The Federal Government has complete control over the States. The States must comply with all laws passed by the US Congress.
The Truth
The States must comply with laws passed by the US Congress only if the laws do not violate the United States Constitution. If the laws are unconstitutional the States are free to disregard them. If the States believe the laws are unconstitutional they do not have to wait for the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional.
The Facts
When the States ratified the Constitution they did not surrender all of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. The States only transferred small portions of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. These portions of sovereignty, or powers, they transferred are clearly spelled out in the Constitution and mainly have to do with the defense of the nation as a whole, relations with the foreign nations, and relations between the individual States. All other powers remained with the States.
The Constitution created a limited government. It is a limited government because it is limited only to the powers spelled out, or enumerated, in the Constitution. If a power is not spelled out in the Constitution the power remains with the States or individuals respectively.
If the States had surrendered all of their sovereignty to the federal government then all of the power would be concentrated with the federal government. Our founding fathers greatly feared the concentration of power in Washington DC. They included in the Constitution many protections to prevent that from happening. During the ratification of the Constitution it became clear that many believed these protections were not strong enough so the tenth amendment was added to the constitution
The framers of the Constitution never intended the Supreme Court be the final arbitrator of what is Constitutional and not. The Supreme Court plays an important role in this process but this duty is shared with the other two branches of the federal government, the States, and ultimately with the American people
The Proof
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress
Article 1 Section 10 lists the powers denied to the States
10th Amendment
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.
“It is fatal heresy to suppose either our state governments are superior to the federal, or the federal to the states. The people to whom all power belongs, have the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characteristics of which are foreign and domestic.” Thomas Jefferson
“The powers of the Federal Government are related to external objects and are few. But the powers in the states relate to those great objects which immediately concerns the prosperity if the people.” James Madison
“The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the states all authorities with respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign and other states.” Thomas Jefferson
“The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments “Thomas Jefferson
“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived. “
James Madison
In the Kentucky Resolves Thomas Jefferson and in the Virginia Resolves James Madison discuss the doctrine of nullification which allows the states to ignore unconstitutional laws even if the Supreme Court does not declare them unconstitutional.
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/04/25/does-the-federal-gover...
- Permalink Reply by on
- My answer in two letters is NO!
No comments:
Post a Comment