Go Supreme Court!

[Dave240Z]

W/ every new law that's passed, we're getting one step closer to the "Red". (that's communism for readers that are too young to remember. lol.) All in the name of the "Greater Good." .

 

I totally agree. This ruling is simply appalling. At least it was a narrow decision (5-4). The comment by Justice O'Conner sums it up best.

 

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

 

I have quite an affinity towards history, specifically the Revolutionary Era. The more I read about that period and the people who influenced it, the more amazed I am at how brilliant these people were and yet at the same time, the more concerned I become about where we, as a nation, are heading today. I find it simply amazing how much foresight our “founding fathers†had in creating the basis for a free country. Yet at the same time, especially with rulings such as today’s I am growing ever concerned about the direction this country is taking. Lately, we seem to have no qualms about forsaking our inalienable right of individual rights and freedoms under the thin veil of “security†and the “betterment of allâ€.

 

First, we have the Patriot Act which took things to an entirely new level, all in the name of security. And with today’s ruling, the Gov’t has ruled that it is OK for local gov’ts to take away YOUR property at their discretion for “economic developmentâ€.

 

I’ll leave you with a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson, which I find appropriate here.

 

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.â€

 

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.â€

 

“I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.â€

[JMortensen]

I have known enough pot head who were too lazy to throw out the empty domino's boxes from their living rooms' date=' yet some how were industrious enough to always have a "crop" in the ground or under a set of metal halides.

 

You can't very well legalize pot but keep it illegal to grow for personal consumption. That would be absolutely impossible to enforce. So if you try to tax it too heavily, people will simply plant a few seeds next to their tomatoes and the tax revenues won't earn enough money to pay for the enforcement by the "revenuers".[/quote']

I would think that these industrious potheads were responding to the fact that it isn't legal to buy pot. Pot in general is not known as a great motivator. Sure you're going to get the people who will want to grow their pot better than what's available at the store. I still don't see a problem. There are all kinds of home brew beer kits available, and that doesn't seem to be problematic. It's not like there is any shortage of alcohol taxes coming in.

 

As for this supreme court ruling, it does seem funny how the conservative court members were all against it yet the liberals voted for it. That is until you realize that the "liberal" members are all court activist types who believe government knows more than private citizens. They believe it is the government's responsiblity to protect individuals from themselves.

This time you're right. When the subject is burning flags or abortions then we'll see who sides with individual freedom.

 

Just realize that there is nothing in this ruling to prevent local governments from passing laws preventing such actions.

This is a very good point. In San Luis Obispo, CA they had exactly the opposite bill on the ballot a few years back. The bill was called SOAR (Save Our Agricultural Resources) and it stated that ANY "open land," which we commonly refer to as "farms" was to be sold, it had to be voted on by the county. This was the county's way of keeping WalMart out, by forcing landowners with big parcels, or farmers, NOT to sell to developers. Luckily that one failed to pass.

[Guest Phil1934]

This will open up the gates for corruption. We just got a new Walmart. It was built on farm land owned by our county commissioner, which rumor says was given him by the area's biggest land speculator who initially received an 8 million CY land deal for the airport. The speculator bowed out? under charges of corruption. The commissioner was on TV saying if anyone other than his friend got the dirt contract he would call out the county police to ticket every dirt truck. It's been said the best money you can spend is to buy a politician. What's the value of not getting Nat'l Weather radar or early warnings? Evidently Santorum thinks it's $2000.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/11760059.htm

[Guest Aaron]

Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

 

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

 

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it amazing that if you gradually take away Amendment II (by way of "reasonable" controls) there is no way to ensure the other 9. And keep in mind the security they were talking about was not from other nations, but from the government of the USA.

[skipzoomie]

I've been watching for years the govt turning our constitution and bill of rights into toilet paper. I' m just glad that I won't be around for the next revolution.

[cyrus]

I read that...I must be livin' in old Iraq.

[Clifton]

It's not surprising. They (our great Gov't) aren't here for the people but to do what they want to fill their pockets and will amend the constition to do want they want if it's not legal. Gun bans, tax income, taking your property, ect. What next?

[Guest Want aZ]

What's Next??? I'd be afraid to ask, now its iminent domain, next who knows what, They can get my property the same way they can get my guns....pry it from my cold dead hand....

[Guest Phil1934]

What's Next??? I'd be afraid to ask' date=' now its iminent domain, next who knows what,QUOTE']

Maybe it will be kidnapping citizens off the streets. An Italian judge just issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents for kidnapping, excuse me, rendering, an Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan. We are fast allowing the government to do whatever it wants with no accountability. When it hits home it stings, but look what goes on elsewhere, torture, kidnapping, theft of resources and killing of hundreds of thousands. The next administration will have to clean up this mess and restore some semblance of fiscal balance. This may be why the GOP hasn't even thought of a successor. Whoever it is is going to get a no win situation.

[auxilary]

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

 

Press Release

 

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media

For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

 

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

 

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

 

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

 

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

 

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

 

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

 

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

 

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

 

# # #

 

Logan Darrow Clements

Freestar Media, LLC

 

Phone 310-593-4843

logan@freestarmedia.com

http://www.freestarmedia.com

[Guest Phil1934]

Interesting he didn't go after Stevens or Ginsberg. Oh, that's right. We are trying to play this as a betrayal by the liberals. Doesn't this smell a little like Delay's attack on the judges over the Schiavo thing? I don't think personalizing decisions against a particular judge is the way to go. I don't agree with the decision. Characterizing anywhere on the CT coast as an ecomically blighted area seems laughable, but the decision has been made.

[Forrest]

He supported the decision, so how could he complain?

[Guest Phil1934]

He supported the decision, so how could he complain?

I would not abort my own baby, but I support the right of others to do so. Bush will tell us tonight why he thinks poorer people should send their children to war.

[Pop N Wood]

I would not abort my own baby, but I support the right of others to do so. Bush will tell us tonight why he thinks poorer people should send their children to war.

 

I fear for your soul.

[Forrest]

I would not abort my own baby, but I support the right of others to do so. Bush will tell us tonight why he thinks poorer people should send their children to war.

 

You support the right of others to abort your baby? I doubt you meant to say that, but that's actually the only way your analogy fits this situation.

[Guest Phil1934]

The point was made Souder supported the decision so he should not complain of losing his house to a publicity stunt. I opened the internet to see the headline Bush says bloddshed in Iraq is "worth it." So if he supports the bloodshed he should drive the twins to the recruiting office? Obviously not. You can support a policy without direct involvement.

[auxilary]

You support the right of others to abort your baby? I.

Babies? you can't have babies! you haven't got a womb! where's the fetus going to gestate, are you going to keep it in a box?

 

People's Front of Judea... PHOOEY!

 

[Guest tony78_280z]

This would be a much more enlightening thread if everyone could stay focused on the issue at hand. Let us discuss this new supreme court ruling without bringing in abortion or pro/anti-war issues.

 

I think this is the most fukced up law, and I hope that Mr. Souter's home becomes a hotel for being so god damn dumb!

 

Everyones home should be siezed and we should all live in apartment complexes and hotels.

 

Could one buisiness be taken by another buisiness that may generate more revenue for the area? Such as a small ma-pa resteraunt siezed by McDonlads because McD could generate more sales and thus more taxes? What about other manufacturers?

 

Iminent domain has been abused enough in the past. Now just sit back and watch!

[Guest Phil1934]

In Galveston TX they are claiming eminent domain against a $40 million per year fish business because they want to build an aquarium on the site. This doesn't even meet the requirements of increased tax revenues, unless the city says they expect to get more revenue from this plan. After it's built they can always say revenues fell short of expectations.

[naplesZ]

I think he should lose his house. Maybe it would make him think about the consequences of his actions. Yes he should drive his twins to the recruiting office. Our they better then the men and women that are over their dieing as we speak. Do I think the president should be over their fighting ? Of course not but I bet you the older Generals who used to be on the frontlines risking their lives were allot less willing to send their troops out to get killed If there was a way to avoid it. I say put Ramified and a couple of his Generals out there In the Green Zone and let see If they still believe we have enough troops.

Back to the original topic.

My only hope is that this decision will continue the push to the far right which will hopefully be followed by a return to the left with hopefully a little balance in the middle. The right being a loss of our freedoms and the fearlessness of the govt. The left being to much freedom and the lack of common since and the government unable to get anything done.

Right know I would say were actually to the far right and the far left in some cases.