Show

THE CONSTITUTION: Is SCOTUS Willing To Defend It … Including Article V?

by Mike Martin
Clash Daily Contributor

An open letter to the Supreme Court:

To: The Four Honorable Justices of Supreme Court of the United States and the other four S.C.R.O.T.U.M.S.

In reference to the case pending before you on the lawfulness or unlawfulness (Constitutionality) of taking the Murr family lot on the St Croix River in Wisconsin.

An Amicus Curiae point of order: Far be it from me to suggest the “scrotums” should employ logic to any of their decisions, but it would seem to me that the ex-post-facto law should also apply to non-criminal cases.

In this instance, if there is an established plot(s) E and F then the order to combine them is a taking of the property rights to sell them separately. This detracts from their use of the land (plot) and as such they should be recompensed for this taking.

Some idiots would argue that it wasn’t a taking because the property wasn’t for sale at that time and as such they had suffered no loss in the taking as of yet. So some idiot justices would say that they have no standing to sue over this loss as they haven’t suffered any loss yet.

I would argue that the Spirit of the Law requires that their property rights not be taken without just compensation. The state should have compensated them at the time that the order to combine the two plots into one parcel was made. They could have then decided on a mutually acceptable price for losing the ability to sell the plots separately, or they could have gone thru condemnation proceedings to have a price “set” for this taking.

The state did no compensate the property holders, nor did they condemn the property so that the property holders’ rights could have then been adjudicated.

I recommend that the case or the taking be denied at this time, and that it be returned to the state agency wanting to have the plots combined for them to start condemnation proceedings so that a jury can then determine the value of the “taking”.

A concerned, logical citizen:
Michael Martin
Uvalde, TX. 78801

Image: photo credit: Curtis Gregory Perry Posted via photopin (license)

mike-martin-editMike Martin thanks you for the opportunity to express “different points of views”, and if you were to ask his family they would probably tell you that he’s as different as they come….

Share if you think the Constitution’s Article V provision still ought to apply in the United States.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.