"Excuse me sir, why is that bulldozer heading straight for my house?"

"Wait a second sir, my state allows me to grow this in my garden, why am I being arrested?"

If you find yourself asking either of these questions, look to June 2005. In June 2005, the Supreme court in Kelo v. New London and Gonzales v. Raich, said, respectively: (1) The government can take your privately owned home and give it to a private company; and (2) State law concerning the health and welfare of its citizens can be trumped by broad, all-encompassing federal statutes.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In Kelo, the Supreme Court held "public use" includes taking the home of a woman who lived in her house since 1918 (along with eight other privately owned homes) and giving it to Pfizer, Inc. (and other private companies) to "revitalize" the neighborhood.

The argument is that government needs this power to create jobs, enlarge the tax base, or improve blighted areas. The court, however, goes even further, arguing that, "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary."

Ignore the magic wand employed by the Court in changing "public use" to "public welfare," and ask what limitations the Fifth Amendment places on government?

As Kelo demonstrates, "monetary" means government can take your home if your property taxes are not generating enough revenue for the city. "Aesthetic" means that if the government finds your home too ugly to be located on Main Street, they can take it from you. "Physical" means that if you haven't repaired your roof recently, the government can confiscate your home. What "spiritual" means is anybody's guess, but it probably means, "If we can't take your property for one of the other reasons, we'll use spiritual."

The Supreme Court's rewriting of the Constitution is, however, rivaled by a decision the court made earlier in the month. The Supreme Court in Raich, held that the federal government has the power to arrest seriously ill patients who grow medical marijuana, prescribed by their doctors, in accordance with state law.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Many intelligent people disagree as to whether marijuana can be effectively utilized as a medicine. Even the majority opinion in Raich refuses to address whether the patients had a "medical necessity." The court held, however, that the federal government can pass laws that regulate economic commerce. The court defines "economic" as the "production, distribution, and consumption of commodities."

What human activity does not fall under this definition? Can the government pass a law prohibiting you from eating the rhubarb from your garden? Yup, that is consumption. Can they stop you from giving the milk from your cows to your neighbor? Sure they can, that is distribution. How about a law banning you from making a wooden horse for your child? Well, that would be production.

No longer can any constitutional scholar argue with a straight face that our government is one of limited, enumerated powers. No longer can we look to the Supreme Court to uphold the individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property.

Where do we go from here? In 1981 the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the city of Detroit to condemn the entire village of Poletown to allow General Motors to build a plant on the site. Last year, however, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed itself and declared such takings unconstitutional under the Michigan Constitution. Similarly, nine states, in violation of federal law, still refuse to allow state police the ability to arrest seriously ill patients who grow medical marijuana in their backyard.

There is little hope that the Supreme Court will overrule its June 2005 decisions. Nevertheless, we can not fall folly to the notion that the Supreme Court "only stopped people from smoking marijuana," or that the Supreme Court is only "stopping stubborn homeowners from preventing the revitalization of the neighborhood." These decisions seem too far away until the government has its bulldozer pointed at you, or its agent knocking down your door. Now, however, the debate has shifted to the states, and what are we, as state citizens, going to do about it?