Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land

Discussion in 'Legal' started by wingman, Jul 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wingman

    wingman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,185
    Location:
    texas
    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.
     
  2. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    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.
     
  3. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    A cook should be ready to eat his own broth. :evil:
     
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Lord high justices disdain to address commoners.
     
  5. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    On top of a mountain in Colorado
    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!!!
     
  6. Vang

    Vang Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    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."
     
  7. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    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
     
  8. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    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.
     
  9. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    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
     
  10. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    743
    Location:
    southern NH
    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".
     
  11. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    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.
     
  12. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    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.
     
  13. Rebar

    Rebar member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,867
    I say, turn around is fair play.

    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.
     
  14. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    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..
     
  15. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    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
     
  16. ravinraven

    ravinraven Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Brasher Falls NY
    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
     
  17. Vang

    Vang Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    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.
     
  18. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    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.
     
  19. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,831
    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?
     
  20. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    No, they prefer a pond full of toothless guppies. The teeth of liberty can bite back.
     
  21. RevDisk

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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.
     
  22. Vang

    Vang Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    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.
     
  23. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    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.
     
  24. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    This statement:
    Is not really supported by this statement:
    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.
     
  25. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Nothing like twisting meanings until you get what you want. :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page