Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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 ---
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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 - ATT 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.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
At 10:36 AM 6/24/2005, J.A. Terranson wrote: 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). You're on crack. They just expanded the Commerce Clause to it's logical limits with the California medical maryjane case. The Bushie agenda may seem traditional reactionary on the surface, but look carefully and you;ll see significant differences in modern neocon vs old family Nixon. Shrub doesn't want Federalism, he wants full theocracy with a Federal bent. Its true that he and many of is supporters are conservatives and not libertarians. Perhaps I'm misrepresenting the essence of the Federalist Society also. Its not clear that they adhere to a single strong ideology, but rather to a vague view of limited government and an 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution.http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm But I can't think of a single case where the SC limited an important authority the government thought it had granted itself. It seems such rollbacks historically only occur on the heels of major protests, threat or actual civil war. So it will be interesting if Bush gets to appoint some of the judges he desires on the SC and if this indeed leads to an eventual rollback of Commerce Clause interpretation. For me an equal bone of contention is the very questionable passage of the 14th Amendment. Even worse than the lack of serious debate which surrounded the Patriot Act, the 14th was passed with Congress violating its own rules of majority and plurality. They simply refused to allow already seated members into the chambers for the vote. They also 'manipulated' the state voting results and neglected to send the result to the President, as Constitutionally required. When a case challenging the 14th was brought to the SC, it ruled that they had no authority to rule on Congresss' failure to follow the Constitutional processes. A total cop-out. But what did anyone expect with 500,000 Americans recently killed on the battle field to keep the Union together. When push comes to shove, the Constitution is only a piece of paper to those in power. Lenny Bruce was certainly right when he said.. In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Steve
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
-- 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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compartment, torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires, puncture the brake lines. you don't need someone to tell you this. takings clause abuse has been going on for a long time.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Yeah, but this steps crosses a line, I think. Before, your home could be taken for a public project. Now, the supreme court has ruled that your home can be taken for a public project that consists entirely of private development, in the name of the public good, which is supposed to equal higher tax revenues. What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere. The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT) How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compartment, torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires, puncture the brake lines. you don't need someone to tell you this. takings clause abuse has been going on for a long time. Dousing the 'dozer with gas and throwing a match may suffice. The two ex-Caltech-student co-conspirators in the Los Angeles area Hummer dealership fire are still at large. Maybe they'll make their way to Connecticut or NYC* and put their skills to use for a worthy cause... rather than for the Marxist ELF. * http://www.nyclu.org/eminent_domain_lj_article_060105.html
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that the author of that opinion was O'Connor, who authored the *dissent* from this week's opinion. Apparently, taking property from one private individual and giving it to another is fine with her if the one you're taking it from is a member of an (evil by definition) oligopoly. O'Connor's dissent in the recent case is full of hair-splitting about why this transfer isn't for public use while the other one was, but all of her arguments would have and should have applied to the earlier case as well. There is a special place in Hell reserved for people like her who open the proverbial barn door and then proceed to complain when the whole herd stampedes through. The key word is principles: O'Connor should find some and try applying them consistently. In her defense, she *thinks* she's identified a legitimate distinction. She thinks there's a fundamental difference between taking property for the purpose of economic development and taking property to break up a landholder oligopoly on a small island. Unfortunately, she's wrong. She's a two-bit socialist in the realm of constitutional takings. She has no compunctions about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, or taking from someone to protect the environment. But she starts whining when the court decides to take from the (relatively) poor and give to the rich. As for Berman... (quoting O'Connor's dissent from Kelo) In Berman, we upheld takings within a blighted neighborhood of Washington, D. C. The neighborhood had so deteriorated that, for example, 64.3% of its dwellings were beyond repair. 348 U. S., at 30. It had become burdened with overcrowding of dwellings, lack of adequate streets and alleys, and lack of light and air. Id., at 34. Congress had determined that the neighborhood had become injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare and that it was necessary to eliminat[e] all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose, including eminent domain. Those are good reasons for the government to do something, although I can't agree that taking the property to raze it and sell it to developers -- no matter what the reason -- qualifies as public use. To be constitutional, they'd have had to turn the area into a public park or a museum or something. A reasonable action under our current system of government and jurisprudence could have been for the D.C. city council (which can be overridden by Congress, but Congress generally leaves it alone) to enact a health and safety law requiring the property owners to fix things, and fining them and having the city fix things if the property owners did not comply. If fixing meant razing the buildings and putting up tents, so be it. But no level of government had the right to take titles from the land owners unless the land would then be put to public use. I don't philosophically support that solution because it violates private property rights. If someone wants to live in an unsafe or unhealthy environment with no light and no alleys, the government shouldn't have the power to intervene. But it's widely accepted in urban areas that the government has the power to intervene on the basis of gross neglect of public (e.g. tenant) health and safety, and that's a somewhat better and less intrusive way of fixing the situation in Berman without going so far as taking the property away from the landholders. The opening paragraph of Berman admits that the property, once taken, may be (i.e. will be) sold to private developers. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=casecourt=USvol=348invol=26 So, while O'Connor shouldn't be defending either decision, at least there was some basis for the government to do *something* in Berman. And at least, because O'Connor wasn't part of that decision, she can't be accused of violating her own principles in Kelo with respect to Berman.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
This is very bad news. A lot of people will loose their homes to private 'economic developers'. It certainly means no right to have a permenant home. When suburbs start developing, the people are going to be evicted over and over. How long will this continue? If they cant do any good for individual citizens, how are they going to do it for the public good? --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Holy crap. Some shitty little township can now bulldoze your house because someone wants to convert the space into a Waffle House. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ Where's Tim May when you need him? Where's the RAGE? How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) -TD __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that the author of that opinion was O'Connor, who authored the *dissent* from this week's opinion. Apparently, taking property from one private individual and giving it to another is fine with her if the one you're taking it from is a member of an (evil by definition) oligopoly. O'Connor's dissent in the recent case is full of hair-splitting about why this transfer isn't for public use while the other one was, but all of her arguments would have and should have applied to the earlier case as well. There is a special place in Hell reserved for people like her who open the proverbial barn door and then proceed to complain when the whole herd stampedes through. The key word is principles: O'Connor should find some and try applying them consistently. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere. It just makes formal (and official) what has existed for a long time. The guy with the most money can do whatever the fuck s/he wants to, with no regard to any rule of law or social responsibility, and there isn't anyone who wants to change that. After all, if we really wanted to change it, it wouldn't be just four or five cpunks bitching on a now obsolete mailing list - it would be citizens with guns storming the halls of congresscritters. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Quoting Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) RPG7 should do it. They're known to be able to take out a Bradley. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Yeah, but this steps crosses a line, I think. Before, your home could be taken for a public project. Now, the supreme court has ruled that your home can be taken for a public project that consists entirely of private development, in the name of the public good, which is supposed to equal higher tax revenues. What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere. -TD From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT) How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compartment, torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires, puncture the brake lines. you don't need someone to tell you this. takings clause abuse has been going on for a long time.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Tyler Durden wrote: Holy crap. Some shitty little township can now bulldoze your house because someone wants to convert the space into a Waffle House. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ Where's Tim May when you need him? Where's the RAGE? How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) -TD Mr.May saw this coming a long time ago. He expressed any rage then, Apparently, no one was listening but the choir. Does anyone think anyone will listen or actually do anything constructive now? And does being able to say I told you so provide any real comfort? Time is past for expressing rage, I'd think.And that's probably enuf sed. jbdigriz
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
From: Jay Listo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Yes, because so many of the current justices have been appointed by Bush... ..oh, wait (You might want to look at which justices joined this opinion and which dissented before you launch into an Evil Republicans rant.) GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere. It just makes formal (and official) what has existed for a long time. The guy with the most money can do whatever the fuck s/he wants to, with no regard to any rule of law or social responsibility, and there isn't anyone who wants to change that. After all, if we really wanted to change it, it wouldn't be just four or five cpunks bitching on a now obsolete mailing list - it would be citizens with guns storming the halls of congresscritters.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: How do you take out a bulldozer? Anti-tank mine?
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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). 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.
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Steve Schear wrote: 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). You're on crack. They just expanded the Commerce Clause to it's logical limits with the California medical maryjane case. The Bushie agenda may seem traditional reactionary on the surface, but look carefully and you;ll see significant differences in modern neocon vs old family Nixon. Shrub doesn't want Federalism, he wants full theocracy with a Federal bent. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
