read more recent story comments Reader comments
Thursday, August 23, 2012: 3:59 pm
More from ronschoolcraft
You are correct, and as I have previously stated, everything you did was legal. However, I argued, and still do, that it was not just and is against the principles enshrined in our nation's founding documents.
Our nation was founded because people were fed up with an elite few (or Monarch) making decisions that were "best for the community" which encroached on individual freedom and the property rights of citizens. The only difference between what the King of England did and what you have done is that you and the council are not a monarch. You have actually become an oligarchy.
Yes, as Mr. Bowlen has so often stated, you were elected by the people of Martinsville to represent and govern them. However, your election does not give you carte blanche authority to do as you please. Unfortunately, in years past, our state legislators have operated with de facto carte blanche authority to pass unjust laws allowing forcible annexation of people's property without due process to those people being annexed. As a result, you had a legal avenue for your use of carte blanche authority to pursue what you deem to be for the collective good while trampling on the rights of the individual.
You may argue that those annexed had due process allowed. How could they? They didn't vote for you or the council. They had no representation before you or the council. The only recourse now is to spend thousands of dollars to fight this in court. We landowners cannot levy taxes to generate the funds for legal support the way that you and the council can.
Ultimately, this whole process is un-American and unjust. No amount of justification or rationalization can change that.
As I have told others, I do not believe and have never stated that you or anyone on the council is evil. I do, however, believe that you and those who voted in favor on the council, have been seduced by a small amount of power and have been manipulated to do something that is inherently wrong, but technically legal. Therefore, I reject your call to be silent and accept this decision.
In reality, this process has revealed that our education system is flawed and has failed us miserably. Our public schools are not educating our citizenry about the founding of our nation and the meaning behind our founding documents. If the principles of individual liberty, limited government and personal property rights enshrined in our constitution were taught in public schools, this would never have happened. Our founders believed that personal property rights are foundational to personal liberty. You and the council have just decimated the personal property rights of those you have annexed against their will.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
As you can see, our Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted among men to "secure these rights" deriving their powers from the "consent of the governed". Your actions are clearly in violation of these principles.
Ronald J. Schoolcraft
Friday, August 24, 2012: 12:02 pm
More from jimenicholls2
not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others
contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law
immoral |i(m)ˈmôrəl, -ˈmärəl|
not conforming to accepted standards of morality
I, too, stick by my allegations. Many meetings were held in secret, per the definition above. This may not be illegal under IC 36-4-3 or other public notification laws, but is definitely immoral, as very well explained by Ron.
At least one councilman in 2010 totally denied any annexation plans or talks were happening. Why is that? Either it was so secret he didn’t know about it, or he lied. There really is no other option.
Our standard for morality and civil/criminal law, for that matter, is first the Bible, and subservient to the Bible is our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments.
Our founding fathers, with the Divine wisdom gleaned from the Scriptures coupled with their own experiences, penned a form of government with no king, queen, emperor, dictator or the like. They designed a form of government where the real power is held by the people over the government elected. This original form is hardly recognizable today because of the millions upon millions of tiny cuts made to it over the last 200 years. What you and your council and “consultants” did with involuntary annexation was another little “cut”, further bleeding the rights from a few in order to enable the perceived and illegitimate “mandate” to “do what’s best for the community”.
Indiana is one of only 4 states that even has an “involuntary” annexation clause. As a state, we must get this statute along with the “buffer zone” law removed from the state code, or no one in Indiana is safe from these debacles. In order to protect the rights of individuals, it must be made harder for municipalities to annex or apply eminent domain. Every administration impediment should be applied to the municipality, not the individual. It is supposed to be hard to take property and rights through law or edict. That was the Founders plan.
Saturday, August 25, 2012: 4:54 am
More from Danny Stewart
|Now you see the threat.|
Sunday, September 9, 2012: 10:27 am
More from GregBader
|You can go to hell for lying as well as stealing or murdering.|
|4 comments found|
» more TABLE OF CONTENTS »
Area salaries & stats
IU sports blog
Fantasy racing league
Quit Smoking...Do It
The Hoosier Scoop
Hoosier Wine Cellar
Residential real estate
Place an ad