Property Rights and Regulations reigned in by the SCOTUS (well, for a bit?)

HERE is the latest on a SCOTUS decision from last week, buried by the lamestreams and a great decision I agree with on property rights.  Having been involved with property rights fights and wetland fascist overreach by the government over the years, I applauded this 5-4 decision supporting private property ownership and the "boundaries" of government regulations of that property.

Having had personal experience with the overreach of Federal and State/Local regulatory hegemony, it is refreshing to see a little light shining on the practices I call unAmerican and anti-Constitutional.  The Fifth Amendment has been manipulated by regulators for about 100 years(starting in New York City).  I consider the SCOTUS decision on zoning as the beginning of a make believe "police" power granted to government which totally undercuts Americans right to their own property.  Whether money, land or other possessions legally owned and obtained. (I also disagree on confiscating property when a person is arrested)

The Fifth Amendment,( many say this originated from the Magna Carta of 1215 AD), says this;

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<sup>"

Along with some other Amendments, the Founders knew they must put into law a protection for American possessions.  The history of the planet's governance was one of the KING owned everything and granted a peasant the permission to use whatever possession they sought.  If permission was not given by the KING, a death sentence at worst or confiscation at best was the result. (The Magna Carta was the first reigning in of the King's power in recorded history) Our Founders said our possessions were ours.  So a major change in "rights" on possessions was made and the governments at all levels have been whittling away at your possessions ever since.

It is the natural intent of government to tell us all what to do since they claim they no what is best for us.  They also pass rules and regulations to restrict the use of our possessions and those rules are what the SCOTUS said was the same as a taking of our possessions outright.  However, we have seen these decisions get raped by the government departments interpreting them.  I became very familiar with the SCOTUS ruling on navigable waters (Rapanos 2006) and the right to regulate them.  Our Constitution says there must be interstate activity and a direct nexus  for the Federal Government to regulate but over time even intrastate was regulated by a crafty SCOTUS and Congress utilizing the "Commerce Clause" as the mechanism of justification of regulation.  Of course common sense says a drainage swale containing a seasonal trickle of water is probably not a "navigable" waterway, but that did not stop the government from saying Washington DC and their EPA and Army Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction. 

The SCOTUS finally heard a lawsuit on this very issue and ruled against the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.  Afterwards, I read many of the Army Corps and EPA interpretations (in a quest for more regulations) of the SCOTUS decision relieving them of jurisdiction and was shocked, shocked to read their words and analysis.  These pinheads of the Federal agencies said, regardless of the SCOTUS decision, we will install MORE regulations and make the property owner prove he is not under our jurisdiction! The State of California did this as well with the Angora fire at Lake Tahoe a few years ago.  The result of the "brilliant" pinheads on the fire was to require a interior sprinkler system (+$10,000), no open eaves (soffits and more money) and a whole list of changes.  Of course the fire burned the homes from the outside in that was lost in the government zeal to to regulate it appears. (The fire was a intense one because the government failed to manage the forest properly)

The facts are always manipulated by government to regulate us and our possessions (the IRS is the latest bunch of scofflaws).  A SCOTUS decision in 1926 to say a "pig farm" could be regulated in the form of a new set of laws called "zoning", calling it a "police power".  spread across the country like wildfire.  Now "zoning" restricts almost every aspect of your possessions in the form of protecting us from ourselves. Here is the ruling and the important SCOTUS conclusion and it aftermath for America, from 1926. (from Wikipedia)</sup>


The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926. The zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio was challenged in court by a local land owner on the basis that restricting use of property violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though initially ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, the zoning ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co..
By the late 1920s most of the nation had developed a set of zoning regulations.<sup>[citation needed]"

Spread like wildfire, boy I had that right!  So over time we see the erosion of our rights under numerous Amendments
and once in a while some people just get plain fed up and take on the government.  Thank goodness the 
Pacific Legal Foundation took up the cause and was once again victorious.  (Please donate as I do to the PLF.  
See the link HERE to the PLF.

I will watch and read  these government agencies interpreting the SCOTUS decision. I bet they  undermine the intent and the
 true reasons for the decision.  I though it was our American duty (as espoused by liberals) to respect the outcomes
 regardless of our personal feelings and  bias.   I am told we all must abide by the other decisions last week.  We have to  
watch the Gay Parades on the  news and we must not say anything which could be construed as a conflict with the rulings. 
 PC is the way!

  So, I say to our government  "interpreters" on these property rights rulings.  Abide by them as you would 
any decision by using "common sense" (got some?) and the intent of the court.  When you do you will be once again placed
 on the table of importance rather than the table of derision by your bosses, we the American people.  Abide by the 
ruling please.  No wringing of hands and worrying about what is best for us and our possessions.  We will do the worrying
since it is we who own the possessions and who pay the taxes on them which pays you salaries.</sup>