Support the VA Property Rights Amendment

This Tuesday, Virginians will have the important opportunity to enshrine Property Rights as a fundamental right in VA.  There are a couple FAQs to know about the Property Rights Amendment.
  

Q. What are my property rights? Why aren’t these enough? 
A. Currently, Article I, Section 11 of the state Constitution provides that “just compensation” must be paid when property is taken or damaged for public use. But the current Constitution leaves it to the Virginia General Assembly to define “public use.” Accordingly, government officials in Virginia have been able to confiscate property for uses that are not truly public (such as economic development). And when they do take land, they have been able to force property owners to accept less as compensation than what they are losing.
  
Q. Why is the proposed Property Rights Amendment better?
A. It does three things to stop government overreaching when it takes land, and from underpaying property owners. First, it clarifies that government can take private property only when the land will be for projects the public will actually use (such as transportation and schools – not private projects that will only benefit developers) – it makes the words “public use” mean what they say. Second, it will end the systematic shortchanging of Virginians who lose their business to a condemnation or see their property’s value severely diminished when their highway access is cut off. And third, it enshrines the right of private property ownership as a fundamental right, recognizing that it has the same status in the eyes of the law as the rights of freedom of speech or religion. 

You should also watch this video from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on why this is an important issue.


Two other great resources for learning more about the amendment are from the VA Family Foundation, and Mark Obenshain-the senator who sponsored the amendment. Remember, when you go to vote, don't stop with the elections.  Make sure you Vote Yes on the first amendment on the ballot.

Tyranny by Another Name

On March 4th news that the Virginia state central committee was pressuring Jeff Frederick to resign as RPV chairman hit the blogosphere.  The following day the California Supreme Court held oral arguments on Proposition 8.  While most would argue that these two events have nothing in common, I would like to disagree.

Last November California voters approved a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  In a state that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, this measure passed by 52.1% with Barack Obama on the ballot.  After Prop 8 passed the opponents of the measure argued that a majority of the people have no right to take away the rights of the minority.  They argued they have a right to homosexual marriage.  If this is true the measure clearly removed that "right".  In an attempt to win on this argument they appealed the measure to the courts which resulted in the oral arguments on Thursday.  If the California State Supreme Court overturns the voice of the people, it will be yet another example of judicial tyrrany.  Judicial tyranny occurs when the courts override a decision of the legislature or the people for political reasons, and not because it is legally unconstitutional.  Conservatives would argue that Kelo vs. New London and, the two biggest thorns in the sides of social conservatives, Roe vs. Wade and Texas vs. Lawrence are examples of judicial tyranny.  Judicial tyranny occurs when unelected judges make the law instead of the people and their elected representatives.

In California we are faced with the possibility that a few judges will of over five million voters will be overturned.  In Virginia we are faced with the possibility that sixty plus members of the state central committee will overturn the will of the Virginia grassroots at the 2008 RPV State Convention.  The last convention was attended by over 4,000 activists from across this commonwealth.  Over the course of the campaign they were presented with two different visions for the RPV and were able to vote on the vision they agreed with.  The Virginia grassroots overwhelmingly supported Jeff Frederick for chairman of the RPV.  Instead of respecting that fact, members of state central have been opposing Jeff Frederick at every turn, and now it appears that in under a month a little over sixty party insiders will overturn the will of the Virginia grassroots as expressed last May.  We went to Richmond last May to make our voices heard, and we thought they were heard.  Now the party leadership says we don't care what you said we will ignore your voice.  It makes you wonder why we should have voted at all last year.

In California the voters are faced with the possibility that their votes for prop 8 last November will be overturned by a couple judges.  In Virginia Republican politics, we are faced with the possibility that our vote at last year's convention will be overturned.

This may not be judicial tyranny, but that is only because judges aren't involved.