justin_o_guy2 wrote on 05/29/22 at 11:43:42:


That’s a very good question. It deserves a deeper look.

 I think the difference is extreme cases.  Like people that coupon.

 There's using coupons and there's buying 130 bottles of mustard so you can get one free.  Nobody really cares until they start advertising how they got free mustard.  

 
"Do you even have a Right to put back necessities just in case they become unavailable or unaffordable?"

 I wouldn't say its a "right" as procurement and storage of goods isn't Constitutionally protected.  There are however laws and amendments that disallow illegal seizure of personal property.

 Paranoid is a matter of opinion, so that depends entirely on who you are talking to.

"So, you're saying No?"

 Yes, I am saying I am unaware of anything in the US Constitution that specifically guarantees we can obtain items.

 I feel that instead of writing in protections for all things we can have they instead limited the ability for the Government to take things away.  Thus the Due Process Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  These due process doctrines were most recognized when enforced in Lochner v. New York in 1905.

 It's like the difference between having laws that show every item you can ever haul in your truck, updating it annually for every new thing that could ever be in a truck, versus just making a law that the authorities can't just take your personal property for no reason.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 05/31/22 at 15:03:13:


One form is called 'eminent domain', it is usually used to, 'widen a road', 'increase the town size', 'put in a water-tower', etc/.etc/etc. The owner is offered a compromise for the property at issue.

YET it can be used for ANYTHING !

How much that property is worth depends on many factors.
And the Government authority will Hugely, 'LO BALL' the value.
While the owner will Hugely, 'HI BALL', the value.

Now comes the FUN.
The GOVERNMENT will Lie, Threaten, and just plain make $hit up.
MOST people, will succumb,
and the, 'government entity', wins their, 'Low Ball'.

In A few cases, the 'government', is told, in no uncertain terms, they can NOT do what they are doing, and then the settlement is for a FAIR price.

That is how the, 'government' can take anything they want.,
It is MOSTLY, Land, or rights.
Yet it Can Be, anything !

Golly gee Wally,
Can anyone say the 2nd Amendment ?


Oh Yea, that right,
they were not slapped on a Airplane.

How can anyone believe that a free citizen does Not have the Right to purchase From the grocery store?

 Point out to me where in the US Constitution the procurement of goods is actually a "right".


Come on,, tell us exactly how the government has a right to take my store of food.

 
 I didn't say they had the right to take your food, I said the exact opposite of that.

 Instead of the Government creating a method to define all forms of personal property they instead limited their own ability to take it.  What parts of the Constitution and case law that I referenced is incorrect?

"Are you serious?
You have so little grasp of reality that you would pretend that unless something is enumerated in the constitution it's NOT your Right?"

 What I am saying, using the actual US Constitution for reference - is that our "rights" to property are managed in the US Constitution by means of restricting the Governments ability to take it.


"You know about Napoleonic law, right?"

 I know its called Napoleonic Code and is only directly used in Louisiana and that discrepancies in jurisprudence don’t amount to huge differences in implementation.  It is a similar system to the more directly coded "Civil law" used in the rest of the US.


"If you think the constitution must State that you have a Right to engage in commerce and prepare yourself and family r you Don't have a right to do it, I want you as far from the levers of government as possible. You are dangerous."

 I never said that.  Thus is you over-reacting as usual to someone not directly agreeing with everything you say.  I said the US Constitution addresses property rights from a different perspective.  I use actual US Constitution as reference, not things I am TOLD by whoever already agrees with me.  I said "obtain items" specific to having a "right".  I don't see that in the Constitution as personal property is protected from another angle.  

 MnSpring addresses this and you are cool with it, but if I say it you get all worked up.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings


 What parts of the Constitution and case law that I referenced is incorrect?  

"And you actually Believe you are not creating a situation that limits open conversation."

 I am not limiting a single thing you or anyone else says.

 What part of me thinking the US Constitution limits the Governments ability to take our personal property "limits" a conversation on that topic?

 If you don't agree then don't agree.  I referenced the US Constitution and case law to support my opinion, so there's my opinion.  No part of my opinion is personal, or limiting to any of you.


 You asked:

"Do you even have a Right to put back necessities just in case they become unavailable or unaffordable?"

 I offered my opinion and now you want to complain about it.  Don't ask if you don't want opinions.  What it seems is you want people to agree and support, not offer their actual thoughts.

 Here's how I came to my conclusion on property rights in the US.  Why you take this personal I have no idea.

 First we have successfully stopped 3 attempts to take privately owned property in Colorado known as the Pinon canyon expansion.  I have mentioned this multiple times on this forum.  This required a lot of legal study involving but limited to Constitutional Law.  


https://www.westword.com/news/army-abandons-pinon-canyon-expansion-plans-5884608

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hr16-1007

 I spent a few years attending things like the Global Constitutionalism Seminar (the mid 2000s ones) among Yale Law School programs with assistance from associates.  I still work with one of the guys that runs the National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars.  No YouTube, no Facebook, no GatewayPundit just actual law study with actual legal teams.

 We found the best way to stop eminent domain from applying to the Pentagon's national security arguments was to diminish the ability for the Government to fund an expansion.  It took a long time, it took a ton of research into case law and how the US Constitution protects US property, and it worked.

 We won.  So maybe there is substance to accurate interpretation of "rights" and how they apply to the 5th and other Amendments since that is after all what we used to win an actual legal battle against the US Government.

 Off the top of my head I can cite at least 9 cases where property "rights" were addressed by the Supreme Court.  Real cases, not imaginary events.  So you asked for my opinion and I can detail line by line each case and how those SCOTUS decisions influence my opinion - that you asked for.

 I would say we have the "freedom" to purchase goods, and the "right" to not have it taken away without due process of law.