Title: Daryl Hannah and Elderly Land Owner Arrested for Trespassing on Land Stolen Under Eminent Domain Source:
infowars URL Source:http://www.infowars.com/daryl-hanna ... d-stolen-under-eminent-domain/ Published:Oct 7, 2012 Author:Kurt Nimmo Post Date:2012-10-07 07:39:40 by noone222 Keywords:None Views:1665 Comments:83
Actor Daryl Hannah and an elderly land owner were arrested in Texas on Thursday for criminally trespassing on land stolen under eminent domain.
From the Washington Post:
Hannah and landowner Eleanor Fairchild were standing in front of heavy equipment in an attempt to halt construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Fairchild’s farm in Winnsboro, a town about 100 miles east of Dallas. They were arrested for criminal trespassing and taken to the Wood County Jail.
In August, a court in Paris, Texas, ruled that the Canadian energy company has the right to build a pipeline on private land despite widespread opposition by land owners. The transnational corporation is exploiting a loophole in Texas’ oil and gas regulation, according to the New York Times.
In Texas, if a company qualifies as a “common carrier” the state allows it to condemn land without the consent of land owners, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which state “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
As the founders knew, property ownership is a natural and unalienable right. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1766, English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that there are three natural rights: the right to personal security, the right to personal liberty, and the right to private property. In America, circa 2012, we have mostly lost the sense of this and have allowed the state to steal our private property under “eminent domain” without much of a fuss.
As William Norman Grigg notes, the Fifth Amendment has unfortunately served as “one of several Hamiltonian-mercantilist Easter eggs covertly embedded in the Constitution…”
The familiar civics class platitude describes this provision as necessary for the construction of bridges, hospitals, and other amenities that are supposedly “public goods” only government can provide. The inescapable reality is that eminent domain is a particularly vulgar form of plunder used to enrich the political class and their corporate cronies at the expense of the rest of us.
Predictably, the state has characterized the theft of private property as job creation in order to get the commoners to accept the act of corporate rape as somehow beneficial. In April, as partisan politics played out as usual, House Speaker John Boehner lambasted Obama for his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
“He should listen to the voices of the American people and unlock the project so we can get Americans working and address high gas prices,” said Boehner.
This, of course, does not include the voices of the Tar Sands Blockade carried out by a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and environmental activists opposed to TransCanada’s use of eminent domain to steal private property for the pipeline.
The words "eminent domain" aren't in the Constitution. Corporate use isn't public use.
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again).
Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect.
[This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity.
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again).
Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect.
[This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity.
Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities. They are interlopers, trespassers, secessionists, invading forces. Nullify their intrusions. Void their false claims to overrule the Constitution and Americans of it.
Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities.
Bullshit. Do you have a Social(ist) Security Account Number ? If so, you are one of those in opposition to the Constitution "just like them" !
Every license, permit or contractual agreement you share with that govt makes you a "partner" pard. Not only that but each time any of us signs on to a program of the government we are in effect condoning their authority.
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it and Unconstitutional "laws" aren't valid. I'm guessing you don't want to discuss Constitutional enforcement.
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it
You're in error.
The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't.
The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't.
I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
One other thing I want to mention is that FEDERAL doesn't mean national. Since the enactment of the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT and the resulting bankruptcy of the U.S. the FEDERAL GOVT is whatever the (receiver) bankers say it is.
Do we have a right to revolt ? You betcha ! Will we ? As long as people continue to believe in fairytales like we live in a constitutional democratic republic I tend to doubt it.