Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land


PDA






wingman
July 30, 2005, 07:05 PM
Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land By ANNE SAUNDERS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 29, 2:03 PM ET



PLAINFIELD, N.H. - Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.




Organizers are trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.

"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman.

The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David Souter's home. Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."

The efforts are meant in protest of the high court's June ruling that let a Connecticut city take land by eminent domain and turn it over to a private developer. Breyer and Souter supported the decision.

Through a spokesman, Breyer declined to comment on the matter Friday. Souter has also declined comment.

Plainfield Town Administrator Steve Halleran said he didn't expect Plainfield voters to support the Breyer effort, but Logan Darrow Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's gotten support from thousands of people across the country for his Souter plan, and the town clerk in Weare said she had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 court ruling lets officials in New London, Conn., take older homes along the city's waterfront for a private developer who plans to build offices, a hotel and convention center.

If you enjoyed reading about "Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Real Hawkeye
July 30, 2005, 08:11 PM
I saw the guy behind this being interviewed last night. I like the idea. Let them live with the consequences of the injustices that they perpetrate on the rest of us. Perfectly legit, considering their rulings. I hope it works. In fact, if it ever came to the Supreme Court, those justices would have to recuse themselves, so it would be Thomas et al who will decide the case. LOL.

CAnnoneer
July 30, 2005, 09:41 PM
A cook should be ready to eat his own broth. :evil:

Standing Wolf
July 30, 2005, 11:24 PM
Through a spokesman, Breyer declined to comment on the matter Friday. Souter has also declined comment.

Lord high justices disdain to address commoners.

mountainclmbr
July 30, 2005, 11:37 PM
There should be a way to find that it is worth about a buck fifty. No more than that. Maybe much less. For the benefit of the Government that is taking it!!!

Vang
July 31, 2005, 01:49 AM
Anyone who thinks this is funny or logical hasn't read the decision. I do not agree with the decision (I don't, after all, think eminent domain should ever be used), but the reality is that the standard is higher than "I want it."

AZRickD
July 31, 2005, 02:11 AM
Indeed. The standard is not just "I want it" from a rich developer.

Nay, the rich developer must then get 3 out of 5 city councilmembers to vote on his side. Them's pretty high standards.

Of course, he will do this just as he contributes to their campaigns and/or promises jobs to their next of kin.

This ruling invites fraud.

I think it amusing how people were yammering on the selection of NHampshire by the Libertarians as part of the Free State movement given that NH narrowly voted for Kerry in 2004. Oh what fun as they conduct this activism and potentially swing NH from Demo-Blue to GOP-Red (even though the colors were reversed in 1996 and 2000).

Rick

c_yeager
July 31, 2005, 06:51 AM
So, i take it that hypocrisy is a means that is justified by the end?

This guy is against this ruling (so am I btw) and his solution is to be the first one to make use of it? Im sorry, but if i think something is unethical or unjust i think i will make a point of *not* doing it. There are ways to fight this ruling that dont require one to make a mockery of their own views.

Coronach
July 31, 2005, 07:49 AM
Actually, I would think that in a just world the use of eminent domain to take land for public use (read: a park) would be OK, as a concept. It is the use of eminent domain to acquire the land and then turning it over to someone for their own use (read: a development company) that is galling.

So, if these guys really wanted to make a point, they should take Breyer's and Souter's houses and put up a strip mall, not a park. They should also get rich on the deal, just to make the point crystal clear.

Still, good for them. Kelo is an odious decision.

Mike

Igloodude
July 31, 2005, 09:06 AM
Man, I love my state. :D

And this is hardly "end justifies the means" if the whole point of it is to show the justices how their decision can be applied to "random citizens".

Zrex
July 31, 2005, 11:57 AM
Theft is theft, and an asinine ruling by some folks in black robes does not make it right. If you really believe that something is unjust, you fight it; you don't turn around and do the same thing to punish your enemies. That just makes you a hypocrite, kind of like that old whore in California that wants to ban guns yet carries one herself.

The Real Hawkeye
July 31, 2005, 12:37 PM
Theft is theft, and an asinine ruling by some folks in black robes does not make it right. If you really believe that something is unjust, you fight it; you don't turn around and do the same thing to punish your enemies. That just makes you a hypocrite, kind of like that old whore in California that wants to ban guns yet carries one herself.No, a more accurate analogy is to force antigun legislators to place a sign on their front door proclaiming to the world that their house is a gun free zone. I say, make the tyrants suffer the consequences of their own unjust and illegal rulings. Great idea.

Rebar
July 31, 2005, 01:31 PM
I say, turn around is fair play.

given that NH narrowly voted for Kerry in 2004.
The massive voter fraud in NH is only dwarfed by the complete blackout of coverage of it. Busloads of Massachusett students and union thugs drove from polling place to polling place in NH, voted. We have THR members who were eyewitnesses to it.

Marshall
July 31, 2005, 02:20 PM
John Kerry 340,019
George Bush 330,848


9,171 vote difference out of 670,867

Considering the fraud, it was pretty close especially considering Kerry's home state is NH's southern border. Doesn't speak well for Mr. John Kerry-Heinz..

Fletchette
August 1, 2005, 01:33 AM
Theft is theft, and an asinine ruling by some folks in black robes does not make it right. If you really believe that something is unjust, you fight it; you don't turn around and do the same thing to punish your enemies. That just makes you a hypocrite, kind of like that old whore in California that wants to ban guns yet carries one herself.

Zrex,

If the justices tried to STOP the taking of their land, they would be hypocrites. They did, afterall, say it was legal for the government to seize property and give it to a private entity (corporation). This seems like Justice to me!

:D

ravinraven
August 1, 2005, 02:48 AM
Here we go again!

My friend's girlfriend went to Weare. She got back last Tuesday. She went to visit her sister. While there, she and her brother-in-law took a ride down the road Sauter's house is on. The house was surrounded by big cars and big shots in suits. He chickened out and turned around and got out of there. A week or so before that, the Weare police force [both men] were guarding the place.

As far as using the poison the rats have developed to fight those same rats: Get 'er done! What better way to demonstrate the depths "we the people" have sunk to by allowing these particular rats to rule us than to show the people how rotten their ruling is in a high profile case. Fighting a thousand actions where mom and pop are losing their homesteads won't be noticed. Getting even one rat's nest away from a high profile rat will damn sure be noticed by the rats. At least the rats will have to spend money and time in court defending their nests.

I'm against abortion too. But if I could find a time machine and go back to where these rats were embryos, this ruling would not stand today.

Now there's an idea: retroactive birth control.

rr

Vang
August 1, 2005, 03:55 AM
AZRickD, the decision did not mandate states to allow eminent domain.

The decision said, basically, "states can use eminent domain as long as they do the following:" You can read "the following" yourself, but, to be clear, this decision was an action by the Supreme Court to allow states to set their own standards instead of allowing 9 men in robes to decide what was or was not "public use."

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but you should understand it before criticizing it.

buzz_knox
August 1, 2005, 09:41 AM
It did a bit more than set standards for the application of eminent domain. The primary focus of outrage has been the fact that the Court will now allow a public benefit derived from private development to justify eminent domain. Previously, there had to be a public use for the initial taking, even if the property was subsequently used for private development. Now, the gov't can simply state "we'll get more tax revenue from a strip mall than private residences" and that defeats any claim of inappropriate taking.

Baba Louie
August 1, 2005, 12:05 PM
Nay, the rich developer must then get 3 out of 5 city councilmembers to vote on his side. Them's pretty high standards.
Hahahaha. Yes the life of a wealthy developer is pretty tough what with all the trials and tribulations of political campaign parties, mingling with Mayors, City/County Council members... it's gotta be hard work, making money like that. The risks are huge! :rolleyes:

sigh

Being a large Developer with more money than Joe-Homeowner, they could even call on their Campaign Contribution recipients to see how much money they might be needing for the next upcoming election and might just happen to get lucky enough to get 3 out of 5 votes. Certainly if their development will bring in money into said local government coffers, it could be done... for the children. And we all know elected officials love doing things for the kids...
right?

Gotta Love The Golden Rule... He who has the most Gold makes the Rules.

Why, I've even heard tell that they sometimes get massive tax breaks from the local governing agencies to develop their newfound piece of land.

Is this a great country or what?

Here in Las Vegas, we've been through so many politicans playing that game it's hard to keep score who's in jeopardy, who's got the FBI sniffing around them and who's retiring a little wealthier than when they entered politics.

And so it goes. Big Fish eat little fish. Hardly ever works the other way unless we're talking about a school of pirahna. And nobody in gov't likes to think about a school of vicous little armed fish running things, like gov't, do they?

The Real Hawkeye
August 1, 2005, 12:12 PM
And so it goes. Big Fish eat little fish. Hardly ever works the other way unless we're talking about a school of pirahna. And nobody in gov't likes to think about a school of vicous little armed fish running things, like gov't, do they?No, they prefer a pond full of toothless guppies. The teeth of liberty can bite back.

RevDisk
August 1, 2005, 04:23 PM
So, i take it that hypocrisy is a means that is justified by the end?

This guy is against this ruling (so am I btw) and his solution is to be the first one to make use of it? Im sorry, but if i think something is unethical or unjust i think i will make a point of *not* doing it. There are ways to fight this ruling that dont require one to make a mockery of their own views.

If the libs were using this against a party not directly involved, you'd be very much correct. This would make Breyer be punished for his own actions. I fail to see how that is unethical. "If you want to make this hideous evil act legal, you should be the first one to personally have your land taken from you."

It not only punishes those that should be punished, it has a chance of making certain Justices take a bit more notice of what they pass. If they believe they are above the law, they can and will do anything. If they are stung by their own words and action, they might be a bit more reflective of the damage they do to liberty.

Vang
August 1, 2005, 10:14 PM
The decision was not in support of eminent domain (it didn't say states had to allow it), but in support of the states' rights.

I disagree with the decision (I don't think it should be an issue of states' rights), but you should at least be clear about the decision.

buzz_knox
August 2, 2005, 09:17 AM
I am clear about the decision. And it wasn't so much about state's rights as about the balance between the right to own one's property versus the state's power (state's have no rights, remember? They are wholly artificial creations of the people and only have those powers and duties granted to them by the people) to take that property. Formerly, that power to take property was restricted to using it for a public use. Now, the public use is strictly economic, and the state can redistribute wealth in the form of property from one private party to another at its discretion. You should also recall that in this case, there was no proof that there would be an economic benefit.

You shouldn't try to minimize this decision. It means far more than you are letting on.

Don Gwinn
August 2, 2005, 01:22 PM
This statement:
The decision was not in support of eminent domain
Is not really supported by this statement:
(it didn't say states had to allow it),
First of all, Eminent Domain is not the taking of land for private uses. Eminent Domain is the concept of the government's ability to take land. In the U.S. Constitution, it's limited to taking for public uses with just compensation. Being "in support of eminent domain" and being in support of "taking private land for private uses" are emphatically NOT the same thing.

Secondly, there's a lot of space between being "in support" of something, and mandating that same thing as a matter of law. Your argument is analogous to stating that a baseball manager doesn't support steroid use if he doesn't mandate that every player use steroids (He just looks the other way and covers a few backsides while 5 or 6 guys on the cusp gear up.) Obviously, if he's facilitating and allowing steroid use among his players, he supports it. That's what "support" means. Similarly, if the Supreme Court is telling state governments, who it has previously found are bound by the 5th Amendment, that they are allowed to disregard the words "for public use" and engage in takings for private use instead, then they're "in support of" eminent domain takings for private uses. Don't take my word for it. The decision says very clearly that the logic used to support this decision is that by taking land for a private use which increases tax revenues, the public benefits (because we all know that higher tax revenues, by definition, mean public benefit.) Furthermore, the decision continues, if these private uses benefit the public ( a VERY big "if") then they must be considered "public uses" and not private uses. Therefore, the decision concludes, private uses which result in higher tax revenue are actually NOT private uses (your third grade English teacher was an idiot) but, in fact, public uses, and therefore magically become legal under the Constitution.

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 01:56 PM
Nothing like twisting meanings until you get what you want. :rolleyes:

Coronach
August 2, 2005, 02:18 PM
Furthermore, as almost any sort of development that is new (even new-build housing) will provide more of a tax base than any sort of existing residential land, what this means is, de facto, the government can take your land. Period.

The truly cynical will note that this means that if your local government now feels that you're not paying enough in taxes, they can simly oust you and put in someone who they think will.

And the truly cynical will now note that every church and parcel of church-held land is now on the block, as church property is, IIRC, tax exempt. By definition, anything that is put up in place of something that pays zero taxes is a net gain for the public coffers, ergo it is public use.

Make no mistake, Kelo is a terrible decision. When you get down to brass tacks, it means the government can take your land, with no meaningful restraint or limitation.

Mike

buzz_knox
August 2, 2005, 02:30 PM
It just reaffirms what many have said over the years. We don't own our land; we rent it from the gov't. If we didn't pay our rent (in the form of taxes), the landlord could take it from us. Now, under Kelo, if the landlord finds a better deal, it can break the lease and evict us.

Vang
August 2, 2005, 03:28 PM
First of all, Eminent Domain is not the taking of land for private uses. Eminent Domain is the concept of the government's ability to take land. In the U.S. Constitution, it's limited to taking for public uses with just compensation. Being "in support of eminent domain" and being in support of "taking private land for private uses" are emphatically NOT the same thing.

Secondly, there's a lot of space between being "in support" of something, and mandating that same thing as a matter of law. Your argument is analogous to stating that a baseball manager doesn't support steroid use if he doesn't mandate that every player use steroids (He just looks the other way and covers a few backsides while 5 or 6 guys on the cusp gear up.) Obviously, if he's facilitating and allowing steroid use among his players, he supports it. That's what "support" means. Similarly, if the Supreme Court is telling state governments, who it has previously found are bound by the 5th Amendment, that they are allowed to disregard the words "for public use" and engage in takings for private use instead, then they're "in support of" eminent domain takings for private uses. Don't take my word for it. The decision says very clearly that the logic used to support this decision is that by taking land for a private use which increases tax revenues, the public benefits (because we all know that higher tax revenues, by definition, mean public benefit.) Furthermore, the decision continues, if these private uses benefit the public ( a VERY big "if") then they must be considered "public uses" and not private uses. Therefore, the decision concludes, private uses which result in higher tax revenue are actually NOT private uses (your third grade English teacher was an idiot) but, in fact, public uses, and therefore magically become legal under the Constitution.Before we go farther, we must recognize that the originalist intepretation is not the same thing as the plain-text interpretation. To understand the meaning of "public use," we must examine the original meaning of the term and not simply the dictionary definitions of the words. That said, I do indeed agree with your interpretation of "public use."

The Supreme Court's actions were in support of the idea that local legislatures are better able to make decisions about what is "public use" than the federal courts. This has been the way the Supreme Court has handled eminent domain cases for some time. Kelo is simply an extension of the theory that the Supreme Court is not the right body to make every decision about whether or not the proposed taking is for a "public use."

Here's a quote from Stevens:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose.” Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.The decision also places a restriction further than "I want it." Again, from Stevens:
It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case.Now, clearly, this is not much of a restriction in practical terms. However, the Supreme Court is saying that there needs to be some evidence that the project will improve the community in some way beyond increased tax revenues. As local legislatures will determine whether or not this is true, the provision is not very important in practical terms. However, what we say from this is that, again, the Supreme Court is deferring to local legislatures in determining what constitutes "public use" whenever possible.

I should be clear that I do not agree with this reasoning, I am simply explaining it.

Marshall, it seems you believe I support eminent domain. I do not support eminent domain in any form, including for the construction of highways or any other classic example you may think of. I am simply trying to explain the logic of the decision.

In terms of my view of what the decision should have been, I believe the interpretation of "public use" should be that government needs to own the seized property in the future, as well as that the project cannot be done without the taking.

buzz_knox
August 2, 2005, 03:39 PM
Vang, here's the point you're missing. The Court redefined and expanded "public use." Discussions about standards, proper venue, etc. are completely secondary to that basic point. Without the redefinition of the term to include public benefit even if from private actions, nothing else would have mattered because nothing else would have been allowed.

DigitalWarrior
August 2, 2005, 04:29 PM
The Judiciary said it is a given State's responsibility to determine ED laws. I agree, because it is not delegated to the FedGov to do so.

Now each state must rule on the subject. But there is a plan. Attack the rich and powerful in an abuse of ED law. Now the rich and powerful fight this in the legislature and the courts. Such abuses are struck down and prevented in the future for ALL people in the state, guaranteeing property rights.

Strategic thinking at its best, seems like an awesome plan to me.

-DW

Vang
August 2, 2005, 04:33 PM
buzz_knox, the decision was the logical extension of prior decisions, not some new logic.

atk
August 2, 2005, 04:39 PM
Vang,


Maybe I'm just dense, but can you explain how your quote:

It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case.


is a restriction? Where does it say, "thou shalt not", or "it is therefore illegal to", or something similar?

Vang
August 2, 2005, 05:28 PM
The quote is saying that this case is not an example of a situation where the taking is simply a transfer from party A to be party B. The implication is that such a transfer is not public use, especially considering the mandate of a development plan.

The Real Hawkeye
August 2, 2005, 05:32 PM
Let's assume, as is the current view, that the Fourteenth Amendment fully "incorporates" the Fifth to the States. The Fifth Amendment does not create a power in government to take land for private use, but only for public use after just compensation. Public means NOT PRIVATE. This is its historical meaning in our nation and in the English usage. It is also clearly what the Founders meant by it, which can be verified by their writings on the matter. Therefore, assuming incorporation of the Fifth Amendment, the taking must not only be accompanied by due process (Fourteenth Amendment), and not only must there be due compensation (Fifth Amendment via the Fourteenth), but it must also be for a public use ONLY (Fifth Amendment via the Fourteenth). If, therefore, it is taken and given to a private individual or group for a private use (the Fifth Amendment does not refer to any use which provides more tax dollars for the State, but strictly to public use, which means what it says), it violates the Fifth Amendment, and is actionable in the Federal Courts, where Federal Judges are duty bound to prevent the taking by over ruling the State and lower Federal Courts.

Clearly, then, this is a wrong decision, and the Justices in question deserve to be among the first victims of this ruling. Hell, they deserve to be removed from office, unless their argument is that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause does not in fact accomplish incorporation, in which case it would be the State Constitution in question which ought to prevail, as judged by the appropriate State Supreme Court. Absent that, however, this is clearly a bad decision.

Vang
August 2, 2005, 06:46 PM
You still aren't understanding the reasoning of the case. The problem is that determining what a "public use" is is a complicated question. I would, however, agree with you that the taking in Kelo is not a public use.

Seeing as it is such a complicated issue, the Supreme Court has chosen to give the power to choose to the local governments, only intervening in clear-cut cases

You might say it's a black and white issue, but it isn't. These are hard calls. I agree with you in terms of what is a public use, but you simply can't consider it cut and dry. Compare it to the 2nd, an amendment which is very clear. The 2nd has no ambiguous terms; it says "to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed." Is there any ambiguity there? Perhaps a little on the historical meaning of "keep" and "bear" (that is, does the second give me a right to concealed carry, open carry, both?), but nothing compared to the 5th.

The 5th says "public use" and "just compensation." Both of those terms are quite difficult to pin down in an exact manner. For that reason, the Supreme Court is willing to leave the issue to the states wherever possible.

The Real Hawkeye
August 2, 2005, 08:22 PM
You still aren't understanding the reasoning of the case. The problem is that determining what a "public use" is is a complicated question.Not at all. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, our courts understood it to mean, NOT PRIVATE. The slippery slope started with the railroads, which were privately owned, but would provide a public benefit. After that, "public use" came to mean "public benefit." The solution is to go back to where the slippery slope started, i.e., where "public use" became "public benefit," and take a step back from the precipice. I would, however, agree with you that the taking in Kelo is not a public use.

Seeing as it is such a complicated issue, the Supreme Court has chosen to give the power to choose to the local governments, only intervening in clear-cut cases

You might say it's a black and white issue, but it isn't. These are hard calls. I agree with you in terms of what is a public use, but you simply can't consider it cut and dry. Compare it to the 2nd, an amendment which is very clear. The 2nd has no ambiguous terms; it says "to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed." Is there any ambiguity there? Perhaps a little on the historical meaning of "keep" and "bear" (that is, does the second give me a right to concealed carry, open carry, both?), but nothing compared to the 5th.

The 5th says "public use" and "just compensation." Both of those terms are quite difficult to pin down in an exact manner.It was not difficult until the 20th Century. Public use simply means NOT PRIVATE use. Isn't that simple? The courts thought it was just that simple for well over a century. "Just compensation" means that the victim must be made whole again. The law knows how to make people whole in civil suits. Just apply that approach and you are doing just fine. What's so complicated?For this rason, the Supreme Court is willing to leave the issue to the states wherever possible.Interesting that they should leave this to the States when they leave so little of anything else to the States. If the Fourteenth Amendment makes the enforcement of the Fifth Amendment at the state level a Federal issue, then it is a Federal issue in its entirety.

Coronach
August 2, 2005, 08:35 PM
You know? I'm a pretty big States' Rights advocate, but not when it comes down to protection of individual rights. The right to ownership of property might not be enumerated in the US Constitution, but it certainly is well understood by all.

Here we have a case where the SCOTUS has an opportunity to preserve and protect that right, and they have chosen not to do so. Yes, they have pulled back and allowed state government and state constitutional law to govern the cases, but when dealing with basic civil rights like ownership of property, that is tantamount to Pilate washing his hands of the matter.

Simply odious.

Mike

The Real Hawkeye
August 2, 2005, 08:44 PM
The right to ownership of property might not be enumerated in the US Constitution ..."Nor shall any State deprive any person of property without due process of law." Fourteenth Amendmenth. The right to life and liberty are protected in exactly the same way.

Coronach
August 2, 2005, 08:47 PM
Even more to the point, let's take a hypothetical case from the same amendment.

If the City of New London's police force arrests a guy, chucks him in court and he "Pleads the Fifth" and the prosecutor forces him to testify anyway and the judge fails to sustain the objection, what will happen to this case? Running with the wild-arsed assumption that this could even happen, and that the state appelate and supreme courts failed to reverse, there would be a federal case to be made for violation of this hypothetical defendant's constitutional rights. You can darn betcha that, if it got that far, SCOTUS would affirm his right to remain silent. This is a federal issue.

Now, as this is a hypothetical, let's not let it hijack the discussion. I'm merely using it to illustrate my earlier point.

Mike

Coronach
August 2, 2005, 08:48 PM
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of property without due process of law." Fourteenth Amendmenth. The right to life and liberty are protected in exactly the same way.Point taken. I suppose you could say it is backhandedly enumerated in Amendment V, too. Still, I think all of us are on board with the idea that ownership of property is a basic right, regardless of how we define "enumerated".

Mike

cracked butt
August 2, 2005, 11:52 PM
If a corporation/party goes forward with bulldozing Breyer's/Souter's lands to put up a strip mall, I will seriously consider investing in that corporation/party. :evil:

ravinraven
August 3, 2005, 07:46 AM
"Interesting that they should leave this to the States when they leave so little of anything else to the States."

This quote illustrates my theory that the object of all levels of gov't is to conspire to, as Slickster says, "rein in the rights of the people." Getting rights away from the people is the underlying reason for everything that happens in gov't. In this case, the SCOTUS realizes that letting all states and the vast number of county and city gov'ts. "interpret" property rights in such a way as to benefit themselves will eventually trash this right of the people. And there will be a DIVERSITY in the methods of doing this. The only way to combat it is to have individual laws enacted in EVERY juristiction to stop the abuse. If the SCOTUS simply let the founder's "interpretation" stand, none of this other law making would be needed. The time saved in the various juristictions would be rather large. But if you can keep the people constantly fighting to keep the rights GUARANTEED [not granted] by the BoR, you can gradually wear them down. An editor of perhaps the major newspaper in this far north region says. "So what. If they want the shack I'm in, I'll just move to another one." He, and EDITOR in the MSM gives not a rat's pitute about this basic right that makes possible nearly everything in the world of commerece in these United States. Further, he says that any talk of rights, Bill of Rights or maintaining the Constitution is "wacky politics."

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The McCain-Fiengold first amendment abortion, signed by POTUS and, so far, allowed to stand by SCOTUS is another example of "rein[ing] the rights of the people." Only AINOs approve of this. [AINO=American In Name Only] The NJ idea that you can't smoke while driving is another blatant example of getting the people more used to having more law in their faces.

But I digress.

No one who IS a REAL AMERICAN approves of the Property Piracy allowed by the SCOTUS.

rr

The Real Hawkeye
August 3, 2005, 11:57 AM
The McCain-Fiengold first amendment abortionGood characterization, there. Political speech used to be considered "core First Amendment free speech," i.e., it could never be interfered with by any law. How far we have come from that ideal. Today, you literally need to consult a lawyer before you publish anything critical of a politician in office for fear of violating one of the many laws designed to limit this kind of "core First Amendment free speech." Thank you, George Bush, for "preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution" like you swore to do when you took office. :fire:

buzz_knox
August 3, 2005, 12:11 PM
The 5th says "public use" and "just compensation." Both of those terms are quite difficult to pin down in an exact manner. For that reason, the Supreme Court is willing to leave the issue to the states wherever possible.

Once again, you're wrong. Just compensation is determined by a jury if the land owner disagrees with the offer. Public use was well-settled until Kelo. The Supremes engaged in judicial activism by redefining it. The states' role in this is now to decide when to act, not if they can.

atk
August 3, 2005, 01:32 PM
Vang,


The quote is saying that this case is not an example of a situation where the taking is simply a transfer from party A to be party B. The implication is that such a transfer is not public use, especially considering the mandate of a development plan.


I still don't get where the restriction is laid out. I don't see that implication. The quote says that a bright line ruling would be necessary to prevent that activity. Where is the bright line ruling? Doesn't saying that A is necessary for B to not occur mean that while there is no A, then B can occur?

that such a transfer would be illegal. I only see it saying that the transfer would be questioned.

Vang
August 3, 2005, 05:31 PM
The decision mandated that projects have relevant development plans in order to procede, implying that some improvement of the community was also required beyond increased tax revenue.

Again, as I've said several times, I do not agree with the logic of the decision, nor do I think it makes much sense. I was simply trying to explain what the decision was, since most people seem to have a rather skewed idea of what it was.

buzz_knox
August 3, 2005, 05:38 PM
Yet the Supremes allowed this project to proceed notwithstanding a rather blatant lack of evidence supporting the city's contentions. In other words, the city's statements concerning the validity of the project were sufficient rather than evidence supporting said statements.

Fletchette
August 3, 2005, 10:28 PM
Since when is "increasing the tax revenue to the state" considered "in the public interest"? Surely there are higly-taxed dictatorships. I think the very basis for the whole arguement is false.

Vang
August 4, 2005, 04:57 AM
Because the tax increase would not be an increase in the tax rate, but the tax base, which is indeed in the public increase.

If you enjoyed reading about "Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!