Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked.
Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign). Steve
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote:
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked.
Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign).
The conservative justices happen to be correct about that. If there is a need for expansion of federal power, the solution is to pass an amendment, not to read into the commerce and general welfare clauses what was never there. If the judiciary keeps supporting both good and bad laws on the basis of Congress's interstate commerce power, eventually something is going to break. Either we're going to have a civil war or the judiciary is going to have to start contradicting its earlier opinions. We the people should start a campaign to pass amendments in these various areas so that the Supreme Court can revise its earlier opinions without placing laws like the Civil Rights Act completely in jeopardy. These are a few areas which amendments could target: healthcare limiting complexity of the tax code if not repealing the 16th A. NBC weaps (chems def'd by LD50 and quantity for gases and liquids) reiterating the 2nd amendment with the exception of any banned NBC regulation of airspace up to a certain altitude acknowledgment that the U.S. has no authority over outer space civil rights - discrimination clarifying property rights (in light of Kelo) If we don't need or can't agree on amendments in those areas, respective legislation must be nullified. The Kelo decision is simply incorrect, so an amendment correcting it is virtually mandatory. We have no right to healthcare or welfare, and laws granting either are invalid. We have a right to make, buy and sell any weapons we wish, and laws stating otherwise are invalid. We have a right not to be discriminated against by the government, and by purely public institutions, and at polls. We have no right to equal treatment by private corporations or private individuals. We have a right to use the EM spectrum as we wish, and we have a right to possess whatever substances we want. I don't like some of those facts, but they are facts. In order to change them, there is no alternative except to pass constitutional amendments. Otherwise, the government will continue on the path from incoherence to collapse.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, A.Melon wrote:
Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure.
Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign).
The conservative justices happen to be correct about that. If there is a need for expansion of federal power, the solution is to pass an amendment, not to read into the commerce and general welfare clauses what was never there.
What the hell are all of you smoking? This court has *talked* about restricting inappropriate use of the commerce clause, but when it comes to *doing*, they're 100% behind 100% Federal expansion *through* the Commerce clause. Doesn't anyboy actually LOOK at whats going on anymore, or are we all fixated on what these slimballs *say*? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." Joseph Pulitzer 1907 Speech
What the hell are all of you smoking? This court has *talked* about restricting inappropriate use of the commerce clause, but when it comes to *doing*, they're 100% behind 100% Federal expansion *through* the Commerce clause.
Doesn't anyboy actually LOOK at whats going on anymore, or are we all fixated on what these slimballs *say*?
Well, ya' gotta a point there. Actually, I WISH I were smoking something. But "saying" is at some point important. At least, prior to this a number of individual landholders might have been able to work together (ie, amass legal funds) to prevent the bulldozement of their properties by The Donald or whoever else's mouth has been watering recently. Now it just comes down to who can buy more guns: the poor or rich guys & their hired hands (ie, local government). Also, it will probably end up being a kind of turning point. Now, knowing what the SC has decided, there are lots of plans going to drawing boards that have nice big fat red X's over low-income dwellings..."Don't worry about the new Brooklyn stadium, we'll just set off the ED roach bomb and clear 'em all out of there." -TD
What the hell are all of you smoking? This court has *talked* about restricting inappropriate use of the commerce clause, but when it comes to *doing*, they're 100% behind 100% Federal expansion *through* the Commerce clause.
Well, ya' gotta a point there. Actually, I WISH I were smoking something.
California's medical marijuana laws allow you to use it for just about any "medical condition" you can get a doctor to prescribe it for, and there are doctors happy to oblige. This set of mostly really bad decisions by the Supremes is really stressing me out, so I'd better go get something to help me manage the stress :-) Eminent Domain decision looks really bad, though I haven't read it yet. Brad Templeton suggested, though, that the Constitution does still require just compensation, and that the obvious value of the property that's taken is not just the value that the property owner would have taken if he felt like moving out and selling to another homeowner, but the value that the private company would have had to pay to get everybody they're stealing land from to sell out. So it may still be possible to get paid decently by going to court. The Medical Marijuana decision, while appallingly bad, seemed pretty obvious - straight stare decisis from the FDR-era decision that a farmer growing grain on his own land to feed to his own hogs was still engaged in interstate commerce, and therefore subject to FDR's agriculture quasi-nationalization rules. If the Supremes had wanted to overturn that, they could have done so (unlikely), or they could have decided that the case was sufficiently different because it's about medicine and not just commerce (also unlikely), but they didn't. That's a problem with activist lawsuits - you need to have the resources to win, or else you usually end up making the legal situation worse for everybody than if you hadn't done it. At first glance, the cable modem decision looks right, though; haven't had time to read all the fine print yet.
It's an appalling decision, and as Alif says, it's nothing that hasn't been happening for years already. Sad to see it formalized, though. Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it comes to interference with most civil rights, especially for non-citizens or people outside US boundaries, or when it comes to letting the Administration get away with whatever it wants, but this case *is* about *property*, so that's as close as they're going to get to an invitation to do the right thing. (There was another case recently where Clarence Thomas voted the right way; I don't remember the issue, but it surprised me.)
How do you stop a bulldozer? [various destructive options.] Nah. Paper. Applied before the bulldozer heads to your property. Occasionally you need it in mass quantities.
However, there are times you need to stop construction equipment that's doing bad things - AT&T at least used to fly small planes over our main cable routes, looking for backhoes that hadn't checked in with the Don't Dig Here Center. They'd drop them a package with some papers about calling the Call Before You Dig people, a couple of bribes (typically a pair of good work gloves and a pack of gum), and a pack of playing cards to give them something to do while waiting around.
--
Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it comes to interference with most civil rights
For the most part, it was conservative judges, judes hated by the democrats with insane extravagance, that voted for against this decision. Bush's favorite judge is probably Thomas, who voted against this decision. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OATUYUUD6X16QdQnFd2ZgGItmw0TrkkNoR5SYYAZ 4HZTgkPgkgTwPSGrDGUeYo6QjGZU5psCanKPMN479
The proposed taking through eminent domain, of S.C. Justice David Souter's home, for the more profitable use as a 'Lost Liberty Hotel' and 'Just Deserts Cafe'... http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html --- Secrecy is the cornerstone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mightily little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked; Contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; The most you can do is kill him. -Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100 --- Smash The State! mailing list home http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smashthestate ---
Ya' knew that had to happen! Funny but, reading it, it seems like it would be fairly easy to convince the Town board of 5 people that this is a good idea, and from an economic standpoint it just might be!. In much of New Hampshire any revenue at all from something like this is going to benefit the local township: The barrier to entry is very low. Funny to think that Souter has "Live Free or Die" on his license plates. -TD
From: baudmax <baudmax23@stoweaccess.com> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:23:19 -0400
The proposed taking through eminent domain, of S.C. Justice David Souter's home, for the more profitable use as a 'Lost Liberty Hotel' and 'Just Deserts Cafe'...
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
--- Secrecy is the cornerstone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mightily little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked; Contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; The most you can do is kill him.
-Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100
--- Smash The State! mailing list home http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smashthestate ---
Well, James Dobson (right wing Christian evangelical) is targeting some of these same judges, so I don't think the Democrat & Republican division you're pointing to here is all that valid. In other words, some of those same judges are hated by the right. -TD
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org, Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:09:31 -0700
--
Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it comes to interference with most civil rights
For the most part, it was conservative judges, judes hated by the democrats with insane extravagance, that voted for against this decision.
Bush's favorite judge is probably Thomas, who voted against this decision.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OATUYUUD6X16QdQnFd2ZgGItmw0TrkkNoR5SYYAZ 4HZTgkPgkgTwPSGrDGUeYo6QjGZU5psCanKPMN479
Well, James Dobson (right wing Christian evangelical) is targeting some of these same judges, so I don't think the Democrat & Republican division you're pointing to here is all that valid. In other words, some of those same judges are hated by the right.
Thomas in particular is hated by the Right, but everyone, left, right, and center hates the majority decision in Kelo. Polls on major news sites indicate 1-3% support for the decision. The question is not whether there's a division -- of course there is -- but whether liberals are upset enough about this decision to turn against justices who mostly support the modern liberal paradigm.
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org, Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:09:31 -0700
--
Bush's favorite judges are radical activists when it comes to interference with most civil rights
For the most part, it was conservative judges, judes hated by the democrats with insane extravagance, that voted for against this decision.
Bush's favorite judge is probably Thomas, who voted against this decision.
At 12:32 PM 6/30/2005, A.Melon wrote:
Well, James Dobson (right wing Christian evangelical) is targeting some of these same judges, so I don't think the Democrat & Republican division you're pointing to here is all that valid. In other words, some of those same judges are hated by the right.
Thomas in particular is hated by the Right, but everyone, left, right, and center hates the majority decision in Kelo. Polls on major news sites indicate 1-3% support for the decision.
Well, sure. At least 1-3% of the people in the country work for town governments and/or shopping mall developers who get to benefit from this kind of abuse. It's really strange to have a week where not only does the Supreme Court make a bunch of rabidly evil decisions, but Rehnquist and Thomas are on the correct side of several of them. Hope the old bastard can hang on long enough until either Bush is out of office or at least the Senate gets a few more Democrats, because Bush is unlikely to propose somebody even as principled as these right-wing zealots.
The question is not whether there's a division -- of course there is -- but whether liberals are upset enough about this decision to turn against justices who mostly support the modern liberal paradigm.
Well, fat chance. Do the liberals actually DO anything besides talk? At least the rabid Christian right can organize some painful activities. The liberal "left" only seem to try to make enough of a stink for someone else to do something. As the feds shut down their printing presses, they'll bemoan the loss of rights while handing over the keys without a fight. OK, if this isn't true I'd be happy to be proven wrong. -TD
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
Well, fat chance. Do the liberals actually DO anything besides talk? At least the rabid Christian right can organize some painful activities. The liberal "left" only seem to try to make enough of a stink for someone else to do something. As the feds shut down their printing presses, they'll bemoan the loss of rights while handing over the keys without a fight.
OK, if this isn't true I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Unfortunately, this is all too true. The evidence is everywhere around you - asking someone to try and disprove it is disingenuous :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." Joseph Pulitzer 1907 Speech
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050706-094903-3663r.htm "At the grass-roots, the most amusing development is a push by a citizens' group to seize the Weare, N. H., home of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, author of the Kelo opinion, for a "development" project to be called the "Lost Liberty Hotel." The hotel would include a museum on "the loss of freedom in America." A spokesman insists "this is not a prank." Perhaps not. " Steve
participants (7)
-
A.Melon -
baudmax -
Bill Stewart -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Steve Schear -
Tyler Durden