Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:16 pm
by DCrazy
Barry: the entirety of your post is a quote.
TopWop: I wasn't saying that you bashed the Bush administration, I was clarifying why I posted what I did: to stave off any attempts to peg this on the Bush administration, "neocons," or "fascist right-wingers". The hot-button "ubercon" names are all on the opposition side of the argument.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:18 am
by Fusion pimp
Dcrazy,
The long post I made was taken from another website that took it from another website. I didn't write it.
That's why I posted the date/timestamp and the author(at least I think that's the author next to the date/timestamp).
I wasn't claiming it, I just found it interesting/informative and wanted to pass it along.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 7:48 am
by Bold Deceiver
Wow, everyone here actually agrees this was a bad decision. Nice to see everyone fired up about it.
Most seem to agree that the Supreme Court was wrong because it implied a right to take private property for "public use" that doesn't exist in the express language of the U.S. Constitution.
Which leads me to two points:
First, say what you will about the "right to choose", but Roe v. Wade is bad law for precisely the same reasoning. This is your "living, breathing" constitution at work, people. A couple of years ago, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) got into the business of defining when punitive damages exceeded "constitutional limits" under the due process clause. They actually wrote a line to the effect of "we decline to strike a bright line ratio between compensatory and punitive damages, but it's nine to one." (Scalia, Thomas, et al. dissenting.) I mean good god. Great for my business clients, because they want predictability in damages awards -- especially when it's limited to nine to one. But is this a good case? Does anyone remember the Ford Pinto? Shouldn't this sort of thing be left to the Congress, who can take testimony, conduct studies and surveys and hearings? I was absolutely horrified -- because it leads to where we are today: a bizarre band of bedfellows all agreeing that SCOTUS blew it.
In the coming months, look for (hope for, beg for, pray for, write your congressman for?) judges who are strict constructionists or originalists, to pick up support when the administration makes its nomination(s). Let the legislature legislate. Let the courts interpret.
Second, some solace. State governments are empowered to grant private citizens greater rights than they might otherwise enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. Without having done any research on this point, I am about 90 percent sure that states that are offended by this crap opinion can amend their own constitutions, or pass laws, to defeat it.
Nice to see you folks again.
BD
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:27 pm
by kurupt
from what i can see, the problem with the united states is that the people dont vote. i dont think any of these atrocities would have passed had more than a very small minority of the people taken the time go down to the booth and cast a vote.
i'm being hypocritical because i dont vote, but i damn well am going to start.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:02 pm
by Bold Deceiver
kurupt wrote:i'm being hypocritical because i dont vote, but i damn well am going to start.
Excellent.
BD
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:54 pm
by bash
kur, only indirectly would voting had mattered in this case. It was a SCOTUS decision, not a bill that was passed by Congress.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:18 pm
by DCrazy
BD, sure the possibility exists, but why would state governments willingly pass laws that would limit their ability to exercise eminent domain for whatever political purpose they saw fit? SCOTUS handed them a shiny new tool to give kickbacks to major developers.
What I'm hoping to see is some government try to use eminent domain to level a medium-density development under the pretense that the mall that ClearChannel/Simon/whoever wants to build will be better for the public. Then the residents would sue for raw proof that the number of people who would use the mall would be guaranteed to outnumber the people currently occupying the land, and that since the property is supposedly to benefit the public that the people in said area would directly benefit from the mall being put there. Maybe it would make its way back to SCOTUS after a Bush appointment and this decision would get reversed.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:13 pm
by Bold Deceiver
DCrazy wrote:BD, sure the possibility exists, but why would state governments willingly pass laws that would limit their ability to exercise eminent domain for whatever political purpose they saw fit? SCOTUS handed them a shiny new tool to give kickbacks to major developers.
You're absolutely right. Most probably won't. But don't forget, we're the government. At the state level, your noise resonates a good bit more than at the federal level. So make some noise!
DCrazy wrote:Maybe it would make its way back to SCOTUS after a Bush appointment and this decision would get reversed.
The Supreme Court doesn't reverse itself very often, and when it does, it's over a looooooooooong period of time. Better to hope for opinions that seek to "refine" the recent bad opinion in a way that curtails the kinds of abuses we're talking about here. In the meantime, write your congressman and demand an amendment to the state constitution to keep a stupid opinion from becoming a vehicle for governmental abuse.
BD
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:24 pm
by Will Robinson
Any congress that would hold an emergency session to write a new law so they could play Weekend at Bernie's with Terry Schiavo's body but doesn't get together to re-write this fiasco is a congress in need of removal.
At the ballot box, vote the bastards out...every damn one of them!!
Call your congressman and tell them you intend to remove the incumbants for letting this stand.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:41 pm
by kurupt
i'm speaking on a grander scale though. had i voted and alot of people of my generation voted when it was time to, maybe alot of these guys making these decisions wouldnt even be in the position they're in at all, and this wouldn't be happening. its not really solely this that has gotten me off my lazy ass to go vote when the time comes, but this plus other things that are just unthinkable, yet are allowed to happen every day that need to stop.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:59 pm
by Bold Deceiver
kurupt wrote:i'm speaking on a grander scale though. had i voted and alot of people of my generation voted when it was time to, maybe alot of these guys making these decisions wouldnt even be in the position they're in at all, and this wouldn't be happening.
I feel the same way about many things in my own life. But redemption is just a hanging-chad away. Vote against me, vote with me, but (kick me if I sound too exuberant) vote. And teach your kids how important it is, and how many are out there dying so we get the right.
Going quiet now.
BD
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:20 pm
by Palzon
For those who don't read Fark - this is too funny:
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:26 pm
by Gooberman
Thats classic.
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:27 pm
by Skyalmian
Palzon wrote:For those who don't read Fark - this is too funny
Bwahahaha.
I hope they do it, I really do. Hahaha. I'd make it a goal to donate (like some of
these people are suggesting) should they go ahead with it.
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:29 pm
by Lothar
If that actually goes down, it'll be the source of some great OWNED pics.
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:24 pm
by Dedman
Assuming that this isn't a joke, I hope it happens. Assuming it is a joke, FUNNY.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:09 am
by Ferno
ROFL.. guess they didn't think that far ahead.
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 am
by Skyalmian
World Net Daily wrote:THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Souter suitor wants real hotel company
New Hampshire town inundated with support to take justice's home.
Posted: June 29, 2005
11:35 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Logan Darrow Clements, the man looking to oust Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his New Hampshire home following last week's ruling on eminent domain, says he's willing to turn over his effort to professional developers.
"To make this project more viable," he said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, "to let you know that
it's not a prank, that
it's a real project that's gonna go forward, I want to hand this project off to an actual hotel-development company that has actually built hotels in the past, and I'll simply act as the spokesperson."
His statement comes as the town of Weare, N.H., has reportedly been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story.
"There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me," Clements said.
"Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. ... We're trying to make a larger point that we're losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we're doing and take a stand and fight it."
Monday, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.
"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," Meany told the Associated Press. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."
Clements' idea to seize Justice Souter's property and build "The Lost Liberty Hotel" came after the 5-4 ruling last Thursday.
The Kelo v. City of New London decision allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.
When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn't go after Justice John Paul Stevens' abode as well, Clements responded,
"There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations."
Previous stories:
Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?
Property battle heads to states
High court's property decision stirs anger
Court rules cities can seize homes
Reason: Hit and Run wrote:New London Apparatchik to Plaintiffs: Take It On the Arches and Get On With Your Lives Already!
David M. Goebel wrote:Mr. Cavanaugh:
I have seen a copy of the
interview with Scott Bullock. It is disappointing that he will not respect the decision of the Supreme Court of the land. He has carried this case as far as it will go. He needs to let go and get on with life. He had his chance.
Also, one of the statistics he cited is in error. He said that there were 9 states that did not permit takings for economic development purposes. He has said that before in print, listing the states. Unfortunately, we have contacted those 9 states AG offices, and 7 responded. Each of those seven said that they permitted takings for economic purposes under some conditions. Mr. Bullock needs to tell the 'whole truth' when he is interviewed, and not half the truth. It gets very old after a while.
Thanks for listening (or reading).
David M. Goebel
COO, New London Development Corporation
See the comments section for details on this @%&!*...
http://www.castlecoalition.org
A THRer wrote:I really, really hope this works.
So do I...
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:17 pm
by Lothar
Jeff Durbin wrote:I gave the idea to Doug (Logan Darrow Clements' real name) over the weekend and he has ridden with it. To some extent, it is a stunt to draw attention to his real business which is trying to get an Objectivist TV show on the air.
BUT, having said that, we should not underestimate his effort. Doug has never had this much success before on any of his ideas and now that he has something that's taking off I could see him sticking it out. BUT, here's the problem. One of the 5 selectmen in Weare has said that although he relises the point Doug is making he won't vote to use eminent domain against Souter because he thinks it was a wrong decision. That means Doug needs to battle it out in court and he doesn't have the resources to do that. I've referred him to some people who have the skills to assist him and we will see what happens.
The real goal is not to get Souter's home but to get the Kelo decision reversed.
---
One more thing, the reason I suggested Souter is that I knew he lived in NH, a bastion of free marketers who might be inclined to help us make the point. Stevens or Kennedy would have been my first choices but I don't know where they live.
Dunno if the dude is credible, but I hope he is.