As many who read this blog know, I’m fond of harping (until it hurts) about the infamous 1989 Supreme Court decision, Texas vs. Johnson, in which a Texas law banning the desecration of the American flag was struck down as unconstitutional. Besides the fact that I’m fond of American flags and don’t like to see them burned, I think the case provides an excellent example of the havoc that ensues when courts seek to alter the original words and meaning of the Constitution.
But leaving flags aside, nothing in recent history demonstrates the corrosion of our liberties by over-reaching courts better than last year’s Kelo vs. the City of New London decision. In Kelo, the Court tampered with the “Takings Clause” of the Constitution transforming “puplic use” to “public benefit” therby opening the door to developers to seize private property (your house for example) for their own projects (a strip mall for example).
If you think my concern is overblown, consider that 6,000 mostly poor residents of Riveria Beach, Florida, are about to loose their homes to a luxury marina and condominium development. Of course, the Mayor is all for it and who knows, maybe he’ll end up as a resident of a luxury condo and have a boat docked at the marina.
Several months ago, I wrote of a California businessman named Logan Darrow Clements who took it upon himself to raise public awareness of the ruling by starting a campaign to seize the New Hampshire home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Clements proposes a hotel be built on the property and he has obtained the neccessary number of signatures to force a public vote in the town of Weare. The vote will take place in March and supporters of the plan are working hard to generate some momentum, but few believe that Clements can actually pull it off.
I, for one however, am all for Clement’s effort. By calling attention to exactly what’s wrong with this ruling and by doing it within the framework of our laws, he’s forcing more Americans to question the legitimacy of the Court’s actions. Neal Kurk, who is a State Representative and lives in Weare, dismisses Clement’s effort as futile “Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system. You don’t go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments.”
To me, Kurk’s comments are, to put it plainly, wrong and make him sound like a kiss-up. If the Court is intent on dismantling the Constitution, it’s encumbent upon the citizenry to take steps to right the wrong. Politicians like Kurk will defend to the death some sleazeball’s right to burn the American flag, but when citizens act within the framework of bad law to expose the problem, hacks like Kurk are the first to stand up and spout accusations of “revenge” and the like.