Did you see the link where they took someone's home for a developer and did nothing with it?
One of the issues here is the words of the law vs reality.
When the IRS can attack one party, some might consider that to be abusive. When the police can take your money and never charge you with any crime, some might consider that to be abusive. --- The government has a history of abusing the law. We're not allowed to know things, agreement done in secret, can't take any notes, can't talk about it. Audit based on how people vote or pray.
Force some to bake a cake for gays, while others still refuse and nothing is done.
It's called selective enforcement, they get to pick and choose who obeys the law and who gets a pass.
Many states passed laws that countered the SC. It's really an issue of people having rights to their own property.
How do you square the right to grow grain for your own livestock?
The Monsanto case is more about everything Monsanto does than any court case. I didn't even know they had a ruling. I'm talking about the rights of people to know about what they eat.
You haven't posted any links regarding eminent domain in which the land was later never used by the Government. In fact, the case in question concerned the Government taking land from one private developer to give to another for redevelopment. The new owners, private, could not obtain financing and therefore the land was not redeveloped. Nothing to do with the City Government, in fact a completely separate issue to the case.
Civil asset forfeiture is an ongoing problem with many police departments. Notably your link is about Massachusetts police, nothing to do with the Federal Government or a Supreme Court case.
Can you link to cases where people continued to refuse to bake cakes in violation of an agency or court order, and nothing was done about it?
Selective enforcement, and prosecutorial discretion, has been around since the inception of law enforcement. It's hardly about using government power to bully people and much more to do with ensuring law enforcement is efficient and its resources are used well. It's the reason a police officer might decide not to give you a ticket for going 2 MPH above the speed limit, but may do for 10, despite the fact that both are violations of the law. I'd argue that 2 MPH above the speed limit would not be a good use of resources to process the penalty, but 10 would be. A verbal warning would be enough for the 2 MPH case.
Of course, there are some people who corrupt government power, but these are in the minority. Anybody who would expect the Government to run perfectly is delusional, especially given that it's run by other human beings.
States can't pass laws to counter the Supreme Court. They are automatically invalid. Eminent domain is a constitutionally granted power to governments. In no way does this destroy the concept of private property.
How don't they have a right to know what is in their foods? Excusing the evidence that GMOs in foods are not materially different to alternative ingredients and they are very safe for human consumption, is there anything stopping consumers from contacting food manufacturers to ask if they use GMOs in their foods? If they don't disclose that information then buy from another manufacturer. It's strange that now you want the Government to enforce a regulation that would serve essentially no practical purpose, given GMO-based ingredients are not materially different to ordinary ingredients.
Why should the farmer have a right to plant and harvest patented GMOs without a valid licence? That's the whole point of a patent. If you are using somebody else's invention, which the farmer was, then you pay for it under reasonable terms with a licence. The farmer's defence was that
he was not creating the patented goods,
the seeds (by self-replicating) were. You actually think this is a valid defence?
Gonna get me some popcorn and kick back!
