These EPA powers are a violation of the spirit behind habeas corpus.
The EPA can sanction the Sacketts without proof of the violation of a statute and never have to make the case before a disinterested Judge.

By the way, since elections matter, what is Mitt Romney's record when he was governor for appointing conservative judges and since some conservative Justice's will retire during the next presidency, what are the chances that Romney will appoint conservatives if he becomes POTUS?

This is an all important case, as I see it. That the Justices are all struck by the overreaching by the EPA, I hope that they rule for the Sacketts.
For that will uphold the constitution and the 5th Admendment. Essential to the foundation of the country, the constitution and the people of the USA. Just a first step in solidifying the constitutional issues the EPA has been trampling over for years.
And a case we should study carefully here.

speaking of government intrusion into homeowners rights, and related to a recent post:

A recent incident in Labrador is generating a great deal of public reaction and controversy.

One of two men who broke into a home in Hopedale was stabbed by the 42-year-old homeowner. While the case is still under investigation, police say it's possible the homeowner will be charged after a 24-year-old suspect was airlifted to Goose Bay with stab wounds.

link here

Someone breaks into your home in the dead of night, you have no idea if they are armed or what they want, and you get charged for defending yourself? Ridiculous! And judging by the penalties for crimes, a break and entry convict would spend less time in the slammer than the homeowner would with an aggravated assault/attempted murder charge!

This is an all important case, as I see it. That the Justices are all struck by the overreaching by the EPA, I hope that they rule for the Sacketts.
For that will uphold the constitution and the 5th Amendment. Essential to the foundation of the country, the constitution and the people of the USA. Just a first step in solidifying the constitutional issues the EPA has been trampling over for years.
And a case we should study carefully here.

Oz, I don't watch GOP debates for the same reason I don't watch Canadian debates - the media asks stupid questions and generally make asses of themselves and the politicians- but has bureaucratic overreach been discussed. That and getting the debt/deficit under control are two big concerns of RP supporters and Tea Party groups. Obviously foreign affairs is a contentious issue but some degree of certainty that Romney would get rid of EPA, DoE, etc. and scale back depts like the TSA might win him a few more votes from small government constitutionalists in the election.

Examples like the Sackett case and the bio-diesel mandates are the tip of the iceberg and even big government, compassionate conservative politicians should be ashamed at letting unaccountable agencies destroy the basic rights of its citizens.

Considering that the Sacketts bought a property already registered as residential, it seems like the EPA was on a power trip they will regret.All they are really doing is showing the public how arrogant and removed from reality they have become. I would bet good money that the court will throw out the EPA suit and award court costs to the Sacketts. There will be a lot of interest in this case and the court has already given hints on how they will rule.

So much for the right to own private property.

A right, of course, we do not have in Canada, thanks to the Communist PM Trudeau.

That's right, I said it!

Sooner or later Harper will have to face up to the lack of private property laws. If he plays his cards right, he can whittle away at a lot of leftist bastions, Bureaucracies, big government.
It would go a long way to reverse the Rampant socialism here in Canada.
The US supreme court can do the same against the proliferation of these ever hungry for power Federal regulation monsters. Restore the Constitution for individuals, not collectives.

If he plays his cards right, he can whittle away at a lot of leftist bastions,
~Revnant Dream

Farging Leftist bastions!
I hope Harper whittles them all away.
8^)

"There will be a lot of interest in this case and the court has already given hints on how they will rule." Peterj

The full story, although the USC doesn't want to hear anything not in the Record, has Environmental Groups actually running the EPA. Give us money or we will declare your property wet lands….Nothing but Chicago gangsters

What US Constitutional Law has Obama not violated

Clear violation of the takings clause. They needed notice and proper hearing.

Nobody used to post their wooded property against trespassing. Hunting maybe. Now everybody does. Activists go on people's land looking for some star bellied dace or Eastern Plimpton's meadow vole and voila! Your development rights are seized without compensation.

BTW this case comes from the Corrupt US 9th Circuit...

It is unconstitution for the Corrupt US 9th Circuit to exist..period

Sounds just like Dildo McGuilty`s Ontario.There are any number of ways his eco parasites can rob an individual of the use and value of his land.The Clean Water Act and Species at Risk are two despicable pieces of legislation that come to mind.The greenie arseholes rule here too

the

Elections are important because they determine who gets appointed to the Supreme Court in both the USA and Canada. A government might only last four years but justices they appoint will be there for 20 or 30 years. I'm hoping that Harper appoints some young truly conservative Supreme Court justices in the next few years.

The Sackett's case is all the more reason to pressure the Conservatives to have property rights enumerated in The Charter of Rights.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/

so far thats both primaries, Santorum won in Iowa and I'm willing to wager Dr Paul was the real winner in NH.

But we let the MSM tell us who to vote for and if we don't the DEMS & RINOS will make sure the results are what they called for.

Wet lands must be preserved because they are an important breeding ground for mosquitos. Without mosquitos we cannot have diseases such as malaria. Without plagues we will have over-population. Humans are bad for the environment. Go EPA!!! Enemy of the human race!!!

If someone breaks into your house, and you stab him, be sure to keep the head.

"Without mosquitos we cannot have diseases such as malaria."
And without malaria we wouldn't have the WHO and theri insatiable appetite for money.

If a constitution as magnificent as the US constitution cannot protect private property---See Kelo et al., as well as the Sacketts---against the ravages of totalitarian liberalism, what chance do we Canadians have without constitutional protection of property? Our hostess Kate was absolutely correct when she said that the single most important deficiency of the Canadian Charter was the absence of private property rights. No government will be able to shoehorn those rights into our pathetic constitution.

Methinks we have to start over.

This case by the EPA against the Sacketts almost exceeds the stupidity against rural dust they came up with a while ago.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6938669_epa-regulations-rural-dust.html

These wingnuts really need a smackdown and if Obama gets tossed they will get one.

Dust on farms?? These guys are nuts. I would like to see the solution to too much dust on farms. They've never seen Saskatchewan.

Come to think of it Diefenbaker's 1960 Bill of Rights which is still in force contains the following.

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.

The big problem is that this Bill was an act of Parliament which is not binding on future parliaments. To further weaken the Bill here is section 2, the notwithstanding clause, because nothing makes a bill of right ironclad like a notwithstanding clause.

2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

The whole thing is here

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3

Thank God we still have some sanity left in the courts of the United States of America..