Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 |
OT: Sauce For The Goose
Serves him right. If nothing else, it's a brilliant legal practical joke. Of course, Souter, being a Supreme Court justice, will in all events find himself with legal and political recourses closed to ordinary Americans. Hat tip: Richard.
Comments:
This is why libertarians will be forever viewed as fringe wackos. They think these stunts are good publicity. Ayn Rand in the nightstands? Do fountain-heads stay up all night thinking this stuff up?
While libertarians are busy voting for wackjobs like Badnarik, seceeding from the union, and hoarding their gold and hard-tack in the mountains, our rights are burning, and we could use some serious help. It's time for the lefties in the turtle costumes, and their weed-smoking libertarian buddies to get serious about policy instead of stunts. Has a libertarian EVER won a lesser office BEFORE they ran for President? You know, like a real political movement?
Sorry Rob, this case was BS, but the libertarian reaction has been all out of wack. The court wasn't willing to throw decades of precident out, and ruled quite conservatively on only the constitutional question. Rather than being activist and finding a heretofore unrecognized right in the Constitution, they leave it, properly in the realm of legislation. You don't like the answer? You have recourse. Run for congress. Of course, libertarians MIGHT want to run someone for school board FIRST, that is, if they want to be taken seriously as a political movement, and not just a demographic for "High Times" and "Gun Enthusiast" magazines.
Cheers!
While libertarians are busy voting for wackjobs like Badnarik, seceeding from the union, and hoarding their gold and hard-tack in the mountains, our rights are burning, and we could use some serious help. It's time for the lefties in the turtle costumes, and their weed-smoking libertarian buddies to get serious about policy instead of stunts. Has a libertarian EVER won a lesser office BEFORE they ran for President? You know, like a real political movement?
Sorry Rob, this case was BS, but the libertarian reaction has been all out of wack. The court wasn't willing to throw decades of precident out, and ruled quite conservatively on only the constitutional question. Rather than being activist and finding a heretofore unrecognized right in the Constitution, they leave it, properly in the realm of legislation. You don't like the answer? You have recourse. Run for congress. Of course, libertarians MIGHT want to run someone for school board FIRST, that is, if they want to be taken seriously as a political movement, and not just a demographic for "High Times" and "Gun Enthusiast" magazines.
Cheers!
# posted by 
: 6/29/2005 04:17:00 PM
: 6/29/2005 04:17:00 PM
Bruce: you are quite wrong. The court arrived at its conclusion exactly by throwing out literally centuries of precedent. Since when is "public use" handing A's property to B against A's will? That is called theft, whether the government enjoins in it or not. Seriously, Bruce, try reading O'Connor's dissent.
By the way, Bruce, this has exactly zero to do with libertarians, except that they are involved in this prank. This is a direct call for local governments to steal. You're delusional if you believe otherwise. "Run for Congress" is a bogus answer, because ultimately it means not only I have to run for Congress, but I also have to hope that I can get a majority in both houses. Uh uh. That was exactly the point of the "public use" clause in the Constitution: to protect people from Congress and any jackasses who saw fit to steal under the cloak of the state.
Reading the opinion of the court, it's clear that they would find the "Lost Liberty Hotel" violated the Takings Clause unless it was part of a broad public use project. A simple handing over of property from one private party to another is not allowed by this decision.
"
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. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use."
And of course, the SCOTUS would only hear the Lost Liberty Hotel case AFTER it was judged to be a legal taking for a valid public use by New Hampshire courts under New Hampshire law. (New HAMPSHIRE!)
There are PLENTY of fora for the redress of this issue. State legislatures, state courts, etc. I hear the republicans are drafting a law in congress to do just that, to define exactly what uses are public and what are not. I suspect seizing your land for Santa Fe railroad will still be okey-dokey, though.
I still think this is an area better left to legislation.
There's nothing new to this case. Urban renewal projects have gone on for decades and decades, and they all have involved private companies opening businesses.
"
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. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use."
And of course, the SCOTUS would only hear the Lost Liberty Hotel case AFTER it was judged to be a legal taking for a valid public use by New Hampshire courts under New Hampshire law. (New HAMPSHIRE!)
There are PLENTY of fora for the redress of this issue. State legislatures, state courts, etc. I hear the republicans are drafting a law in congress to do just that, to define exactly what uses are public and what are not. I suspect seizing your land for Santa Fe railroad will still be okey-dokey, though.
I still think this is an area better left to legislation.
There's nothing new to this case. Urban renewal projects have gone on for decades and decades, and they all have involved private companies opening businesses.
# posted by : 6/30/2005 10:17:00 AM
: 6/30/2005 10:17:00 AM
The majority decision is legally illiterate, simple as that, Bruce. What goddamned difference does it make whether the taking is part of a plan or not? All that proves is that you can get a city council, hiding in the dead of night, to vote to steal somebody else's property. That's how the lousy banana republics operate. It used to be something the U.S. didn't do because of restrictions on eminent domain. No more.
The court ruled wrong. "Plenty of fora" doesn't matter if you have to get a majority to do it. The point here is protection of the little guy, which apparently you're against.
The court ruled wrong. "Plenty of fora" doesn't matter if you have to get a majority to do it. The point here is protection of the little guy, which apparently you're against.
Yes, as you know, I've always been dead set against the rights of the little guy.
Plus, it's stealing someones property and paying them for it, you left that out.
But nonetheless, the theft that you describe would not be protected under this ruling, so says the majority opinion.
I've been frankly amazed at how this ruling has been exaggerated in the blogosphere. The very things you and others rail against are specifically addressed in the majority opinion.
As I understand it, the case before the court delt narrowly with the question, does urban renewal, including the taking of property (with just compensation) violate the takings clause of the 5th? Citing precident, the court said that no, it doesnt.
Heck, didn't they bulldoze Chavez ravine to build Dodger Stadium? Please explain to me how this is any differet, or shows that we've fallen so far with this particular ruling.
I'm all for the little guy. Trust me. But I want the Court to rule on the law, not on their feelings. This is the law, and has been for decades. Don't like it? Change the law.
Don't let "big bad corporation" and "poor, white-haired granny" be your guides on where you come down on an issue before the court. I don't.
Let's look at what you're suggesting. Should there never be any use of eminent domain?
Under what circumstances should ed be used? To build a park? To build a bike path? To build a Light rail? To build a toll road run by a private corporation? To build a power plant run by a private corporation? To build a train station, that might have a starbucks inside, so Starbucks might profit from the taking? To build a new urban core? To build a skyscraper world trade center?
No urban renewal ever? Just because a business might profit from it. Isn't that the POINT of urban renewal, so that prosperity grows in an area?
Plus, it's stealing someones property and paying them for it, you left that out.
But nonetheless, the theft that you describe would not be protected under this ruling, so says the majority opinion.
I've been frankly amazed at how this ruling has been exaggerated in the blogosphere. The very things you and others rail against are specifically addressed in the majority opinion.
As I understand it, the case before the court delt narrowly with the question, does urban renewal, including the taking of property (with just compensation) violate the takings clause of the 5th? Citing precident, the court said that no, it doesnt.
Heck, didn't they bulldoze Chavez ravine to build Dodger Stadium? Please explain to me how this is any differet, or shows that we've fallen so far with this particular ruling.
I'm all for the little guy. Trust me. But I want the Court to rule on the law, not on their feelings. This is the law, and has been for decades. Don't like it? Change the law.
Don't let "big bad corporation" and "poor, white-haired granny" be your guides on where you come down on an issue before the court. I don't.
Let's look at what you're suggesting. Should there never be any use of eminent domain?
Under what circumstances should ed be used? To build a park? To build a bike path? To build a Light rail? To build a toll road run by a private corporation? To build a power plant run by a private corporation? To build a train station, that might have a starbucks inside, so Starbucks might profit from the taking? To build a new urban core? To build a skyscraper world trade center?
No urban renewal ever? Just because a business might profit from it. Isn't that the POINT of urban renewal, so that prosperity grows in an area?
# posted by : 6/30/2005 05:41:00 PM
: 6/30/2005 05:41:00 PM
Who cares if they pay for it? "Market value" is not "market value" when you know you can force somebody to sell. How if I come over to your house at gunpoint and take all your belongings? But, oh, I'll give you $300 for your trouble. "Payment" is a joke under those circumstances. And this is handing private property over to third parties. "Urban renewal" is exactly that, theft.
I've been frankly amazed at how this ruling has been exaggerated in the blogosphere. The very things you and others rail against are specifically addressed in the majority opinion.
Yes, inadequately. Don't like the fact that "public purpose" now has no meaning whatsoever? You'll have to get a majority on your local city council to agree with your. That's BS, Bruce. This is why the "public purpose" clause was thrown in the constution, but apparently that's been forgotten and obliterated.
I'm all for the little guy.
Except when his property is about to get expropriated.
Heck, didn't they bulldoze Chavez ravine to build Dodger Stadium?
No, they bulldozed Chavez Ravine to build a Federal housing project. That fell through, and the land became available (ha!) for O'Malley's Dodger Stadium. I won't deny that that, too, was an abuse of eminent domain.
Let's look at what you're suggesting. Should there never be any use of eminent domain?
No, but it should be limited to things that actually, directly benefit the public: you know, things like post offices, schools, and roads. That is, the clear bright line is this: does the government operate whatever it is after the transaction? If yes, fine. If not, sorry.
No urban renewal ever? Just because a business might profit from it. Isn't that the POINT of urban renewal, so that prosperity grows in an area?
The point of urban renewal is to cheaply transfer property from owner A to developer B at a below-market rate. It is another phrase for theft. No, no "urban renewal", ever.
I've been frankly amazed at how this ruling has been exaggerated in the blogosphere. The very things you and others rail against are specifically addressed in the majority opinion.
Yes, inadequately. Don't like the fact that "public purpose" now has no meaning whatsoever? You'll have to get a majority on your local city council to agree with your. That's BS, Bruce. This is why the "public purpose" clause was thrown in the constution, but apparently that's been forgotten and obliterated.
I'm all for the little guy.
Except when his property is about to get expropriated.
Heck, didn't they bulldoze Chavez ravine to build Dodger Stadium?
No, they bulldozed Chavez Ravine to build a Federal housing project. That fell through, and the land became available (ha!) for O'Malley's Dodger Stadium. I won't deny that that, too, was an abuse of eminent domain.
Let's look at what you're suggesting. Should there never be any use of eminent domain?
No, but it should be limited to things that actually, directly benefit the public: you know, things like post offices, schools, and roads. That is, the clear bright line is this: does the government operate whatever it is after the transaction? If yes, fine. If not, sorry.
No urban renewal ever? Just because a business might profit from it. Isn't that the POINT of urban renewal, so that prosperity grows in an area?
The point of urban renewal is to cheaply transfer property from owner A to developer B at a below-market rate. It is another phrase for theft. No, no "urban renewal", ever.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.