I am shocked and amazed that I find myself on the side of Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist. My neighborhood, one of the oldest in the city, one in which my parents, my son, and I grew up in, fought this battle over ten years ago. It was a 'done deal' before we even got word that the city was considering it. A groups of residents got together and called as many friends as we could, asking them to call both of their aldermen and express their dismay about the situation. I know that I called over one hundred people. At the next city council meeting, I saw several alderman whispering to each other, "Did you get a lot of calls about this?" "People have been calling me all week about this." (Being able to read lips to an extent really comes in handy. ) What was 14-0 For became 14-0 Against. Even a small group of people can change things sometimes. As far as the constitutionality of Emminent Domain being used in this manner, I can only say that the Supreme Court has spoken, and that is the final word. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it law. However, it sure looks like another sell-out to the people with money.
"Urban Renewal sounds so much better than Slum Clearance, unless you live in the slum." - then comedian, now activist Dick Gregory, speaking about civic dealings in his hometown of St. Louis, - circa 1960. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 06-23-05, 12:26 PM frankvan I think it stinks. Justice O'Connor had the right take on it. It seems too obvious that the beneficiaries of such a ruling will be the wealthy developers and giant corporations who have always had, and will continue to have, "disproportionate" influence on politicians who disproportionately tend to succumb to such influence. IMHO.
06-23-05, 01:04 PM JohnGalt This is NOT eminent domain. The Fifth Ammendment says:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Public use would be things such as a public road, a government school, etc. The idiots at the supreme Court claim that the government has the right to take - by force - your private property and give it to another private entity just so the second private entity can pay more taxes than you currently pay in taxes.
And no, the supreme Court is NOT the final word. For starters, the supreme Court can't pass legislation - and even if they could, no Citizen has to obey an unconstitutional law. Secondly, the Citizens of the United States always have the final word! My final words on this were first spoken over 140 years ago:
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. - Abraham Lincoln
06-23-05, 02:42 PM Fritzzs [quote]This is NOT eminent domain. /quote] ============================================O Oh really ! Then what in the hell do you call it ????
This is probably and absolutely the very worst thing that the Supreme Court could have done...
Instances like this is why the Supreme Court needs to be more conservative and follow the Consitution...
This ruling is going to have terrible consequences for years to come unless the American people get off their lazy arses and contest that ruling... For starters, start raising hell at the Township level to outlaw such notions....
In the past, it was a prideful feeling to own your own property....
But no more, because you really don't own it at all.....
06-23-05, 03:33 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by Fritzzs: [quote]This is NOT eminent domain. /quote] ============================================O Oh really ! Then what in the hell do you call it ????
It's called theft.
Eminent Domain can only be exercised when private property is taken for a legitimate public use and a fair market price given in exchange for the property.
This horrendous decision will soon result in poor families who don't want to sell having their perfectly fine life-long homes that have been passed down from generation to generation being "condemned" by local governments and having that property then handed over to whatever large company that will generate more taxes than the poor families. Any price then offered to the evicted families will be anything but fair market value because it was "condemned" property.
One of the premier legal defenders against eminent domain abuse is the Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org/
06-23-05, 04:52 PM DorianGreyed John, it has been happening for years, and, as far as it not being the law, you are wrong. The Supreme Court just decided that. Until another court decision changes it, it is the law.
Fritzzs - This decision notwithstanding, the current Court's decisions have largely favored business over the little guy. That is hardly the Liberal outlook.
06-23-05, 05:22 PM Fritzzs
quote: It's called theft.
=========================================== Oh absolutely !!! Cities, townships have been streching this EmDomaine to the limit for a number of years... I have no problem when it is used properly...Asin: buying properly for the WELLFARE of all concerned for the community... But to do so for the sake of letting private companies to make big bucks on the pretense of increasing the revenues of the country is wrong...
DG, yes you are totally correct, but I have NEVER heard of it being done so improperly... What this situation is , is nothing but more than legal theft... ....
Everyone on this board should start contacting their local, county, and state officials to stop this unjustice law now... If an indivigual state outlaws it, that will supercede the Supreme Courts rulings... (so I have been told)
Excuse me, "Not a Liberal outlook??? Then who do you think instagated it???
This courts ruling CAN be overturned if people will raise enought hell....
06-23-05, 07:35 PM JohnGalt "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. " Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot; Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256
06-23-05, 08:03 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by Fritzzs: Everyone on this board should start contacting their local, county, and state officials to stop this unjustice law now... If an indivigual state outlaws it, that will supercede the Supreme Courts rulings... (so I have been told)
Ummm, look at the supreme Court's previous ruling against sick and dying patients where the Court all but destroyed any remaining concept of State's Rights. The precedent set in that ruling from the continuing insane Drug War now claims yet another innocent victim: This time it's U.S. property owners.
quote: Originally posted by Fritzzs: Excuse me, "Not a Liberal outlook??? Then who do you think instagated it???
Yes, the only two liberal democrats (and it is democrats who have declared war on the Individual) are partly responsible for this atrocity. But they couldn't have done it alone. David H. Souter, a republican nominated by Bush 41; Anthony Kennedy, a republican nominated by Reagan and John Paul Stevens a republican nominated by Ford were the ones who have delivered this potentially lethal blow to property rights. The Republican Party, long ago, quit being the party of limited government and protecting individual rights. Sadly, most Americans will not fight this or even complain - just as they have failed to fight or complain during all the other assaults on our Liberties. Decades of government "education" have produced generations who don't love Liberty and fear the responsibility that comes with it.
06-23-05, 08:11 PM DorianGreyed "Excuse me, "Not a Liberal outlook??? Then who do you think instagated it???" - Fritzzs
Fritzzs - Do you think that law was backed by the multitude of Liberal real estate developers? You are one of two in AP who have absolutely no comprehension about how Liberals feel. Besides, since you never attend any of the meetings, how could you know what we are doing?
"This courts ruling CAN be overturned if people will raise enought hell...." - Fritzzs
In a word, WRONG. No court can overturn a Supreme Court's ruling, and, generally, the Court does not feel swayed by public pressure. There are only two ways that this ruling can be changed: 1) an Amendment to the US Constitution, or 2) a later Supreme Court rules the other way on a similar case.
John, your citations are on point, but tell me one thing - just WHO is it in the United States that decides on the constitutionality of a law? Who has the final word on that? (Hint- Look for the word "Supreme" in the answer.) Trust me on this, John, you don't get final word on this, I don't get final word on this, the Supreme Court gets final word on this, unless another Amendment is passed, or, as you point out, there is an rebellion. Best of luck with that. Roll Eyes
John, you use the Constitution so much in all your other positions, yet here you say it means nothing. Why? Do you just roll it out when it agrees with your position? Jefferson, Lincoln, and Galt may say what they want to say, but their words do not reflect any legal position. I suggest you look better at the constitution. See Article III, Section 3, 1. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." There seems to be no ambiguity there. (Edit - John seems to have removed his calling this decision treason.)
06-23-05, 09:24 PM coldfuse Of rulings over the past several years, this one concerns me the most.
We are taught that the Constitution is a "living document" and evolves with common law. But is it necessary for us to be concerned that the Supreme Court might hold its own private Constitutional Convention each time it makes a ruling?
I am not surprised at all by the names of dissenting justices in this opinion. Brand them with whatever label you want, these justices often side with the rights of individual citizens.
We must respect the rule of law. The rule of law protects us from tyranny, it protects the little guy from the powerful, and it protects the minority from the majority when necessary. It is essential to our society and has been abandoned here.
06-23-05, 09:51 PM Kelleygirl All that I can say is "and this is the land of the free"? IMO, we loose individual rights more and more all of the time and today we really lost a huge one! Eek
06-23-05, 10:32 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: John, you use the Constitution so much in all your other positions, yet here you say it means nothing. Why?
Not true. I pointed out how the Fifth Amendment provides that the government can take private property for "public use" with just compensation. I don't like it, but I realize the necessary evil of some government functions - including this one. It happens all the time when governments take land to build roads, bridges, public fire stations, etc. That's PUBLIC USE! That's provided for in the Fifth Amendment. The government taking private land, turning around and giving it to Wal Mart or Starbucks just so the government can rake in a bit more in taxes is NOT PUBLIC USE! Therefore it is unconstitutional. And just wait until the first stories start rolling in from people loosing their homes and see what "just compensation" means in this case!
By the way, supreme Court Justices can be impeached. I'll sign that petition when it gets up and running!
A better approach, in my opinion, would be for some enterprising and Liberty-loving businessmen to go to the respective local governments in each area where each of the Justices who voted this sickening injustice lives, and tell the council members, "I would really love to put my business right smack dab on the spot where Justice Breyer [and Ginsburg, and Souter, and Kennedy, and Stevens] have their house[s]. My business would generate so much tax revenue for you that it'll easily be worth your while!" Get thousands of signatures of people who would want these businesses to open up on the spot where their houses are. Make sure they have cameras there during the proposal. Also put up those advertising "Opening Soon" and "Coming Soon" signs on the sidewalks and other public areas right in front of the Justices houses. Do everything in their power to turn this back against the Justices who voted for it. Will they actually be able to condemn the Justices property and get a Starbucks put there? No. But they may just get the point across! If not to the Justices, then to the people!
06-23-05, 11:09 PM DorianGreyed "The government taking private land, turning around and giving it to Wal Mart or Starbucks just so the government can rake in a bit more in taxes is NOT PUBLIC USE! Therefore it is unconstitutional. And just wait until the first stories start rolling in from people loosing their homes and see what "just compensation" means in this case!" - John
John, if taxes are garnered from this, a case certainly can be made that it IS for public use. ANd, I repeat, neither you nor I get to decide what is and isn't constitutional. The people who do have ruled on it. With regard to the "And just wait..." portion of your post, all I can ask is where have you been. It has been happening all over the US for years. You, of all of us on AP, should have been aware of that.
06-23-05, 11:36 PM DorianGreyed "We must respect the rule of law. The rule of law protects us from tyranny, it protects the little guy from the powerful, and it protects the minority from the majority when necessary. It is essential to our society and has been abandoned here." - Fuse
I wholeheartedly agree.
06-24-05, 05:58 AM Fritzzs
quote: In a word, WRONG. No court can overturn a Supreme Court's ruling, and, generally, the Court does not feel swayed by public pressure. There are only two ways that this ruling can be changed: 1) an Amendment to the US Constitution, or 2) a later Supreme Court rules the other way on a similar case.
================================================ Of course no lower court can overturn a Supreme Court ruling... My main point is that if enough pressure is used then maybe the proper people will be appointed to the high court to overturn it... What I am saying is, that the squeaky wheel always get the oil..so to speak...
06-25-05, 06:06 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: ...unless another Amendment is passed, or, as you point out, there is an rebellion. Best of luck with that. Roll Eyes
Revolution doesn't automatically mean pull out the guns and storm Washington D.C.. Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience? That is a form of revolution, as are a thousand other peaceful methods. Indeed, some of the homeowners in this landmark case say they will stay in their homes when the bulldozers arrive. How are they any different than the civil rights protestors of the 1960s?
But all this squabbling among ourselves is pointless and counterproductive, especially considering we apparently share a common enemy - this decision. I don't take the sit back and accept it mentality on this or anything else that affects me and my family negatively. I urge others not too either.
Even though the concept of State's Rights is all but dead (helped in part by another horrible supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana) 8 states currently prohibit eminent domain for private development – Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida.
To everyone in other states, please contact your legislators right now! An old fashioned written, signed letter goes farther than an e-mail or phone call - but do whatever you can. Be civil and polite but firm in letting them know that you want your private property rights restored and that your vote on election day hinges on their actions. Write letters to your local newspaper. Attend local city council meetings. Make your voice heard. Please don't shrug this off as inevitable. If you won't stand up and fight for your own home from being bulldozed, what will you fight for?
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
--Pastor Niemoller
06-29-05, 08:31 AM frankvan
quote: A better approach, in my opinion, would be for some enterprising and Liberty-loving businessmen to go to the respective local governments in each area where each of the Justices who voted this sickening injustice lives, and tell the council members, "I would really love to put my business right smack dab on the spot where Justice Breyer [and Ginsburg, and Souter, and Kennedy, and Stevens] have their house[s].
06-29-05, 09:03 AM JohnGalt I wish I could take credit for it. Great minds think alike! Smile
Obviously Justice Souter doesn't have anything to worry about since he is not poor or black, the number one target of eminent domain abuse, but hopefully he will get the message.
Again, to everyone: Write your local and state legislator and tell them to return eminent domain back to its original limited Constitutional purpose. When it comes to your home, you won't get the special treatment that Souter gets.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17475 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Of rulings over the past several years, this one concerns me the most.
We are taught that the Constitution is a "living document" and evolves with common law. But is it necessary for us to be concerned that the Supreme Court might hold its own private Constitutional Convention each time it makes a ruling?
I am not surprised at all by the names of dissenting justices in this opinion. Brand them with whatever label you want, these justices often side with the rights of individual citizens.
We must respect the rule of law. The rule of law protects us from tyranny, it protects the little guy from the powerful, and it protects the minority from the majority when necessary. It is essential to our society and has been abandoned here.
Posts: 8061 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
I'm wondering if the Supreme Court didn't just turn us all into Native Americans? You remember those people in our history books that kept getting moved further and further from their homes because someone thought they could do "better" with the land?
Posts: 1196 | Location: A danger to this country and the free world | Registered: 03-18-04
Revenge is sometimes sweet... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 07-01-05, 11:42 AM DorianGreyed "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' 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." - Ami's link
Maybe our JohnGalt will be an investor in this property.
The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.
(Note- the article mentions the "conservative Family Research Council" and their campaign against the Supreme Court ruling. Be aware that the Family Research Council is headed by Tony Perkins who has ties to white supremacy groups.) 07-01-05, 08:04 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by Rakuchild: (Note- the article mentions the "conservative Family Research Council" and their campaign against the Supreme Court ruling. Be aware that the Family Research Council is headed by Tony Perkins who has ties to white supremacy groups.)
So he has "ties"! So what?! There is no evidence that he developed any collaborative relationship from that. There are no real links between him and the KKK! Leave the man alone! He is not now - and never will be - a threat. The next thing you'll be claiming is that this man (or others like him) are stockpiling fully automatic machine guns or something like that and that the authorities need to go in there and remove them! No policeman's life is ever worth that!!! (Tongue removed from cheek now, after my point has been made. Big Grin Wink )
07-01-05, 10:49 PM Rakuchild How can you predict whether or not the man will ever be a threat? The man bought David Duke's mailing list for political purpose and was busted for it. He has spoken before the Council of Conservative Citizens which is recognized as a white supremisist group. I feel it's important to inform people that there are those out there hiding behind innocent and "noble" sounding named groups that have a separatist agenda.
They are using the Christian church for a soapbox and getting people to support anti-gay legislation. But who will they go after if they are successful in oppressing the gay population? Blacks? Hispanics? Non-Christians? I wasn't around in the 1950's, but from what I've read, I don't want to go back to the standards of that time.
That's why "so what" Tony Perkins has ties to white supremecy organizations. Know who the people are that are influcing our politics, especially if they are media whores like Perkins.
07-02-05, 11:05 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by Rakuchild: How can you predict whether or not the man will ever be a threat?
No one can predict - including you! Which is why the police can't act preemptively in such a manner against Perkins! The police must wait until after Perkins actually does something bad against someone - if he ever even does!
Besides I'm white, so any alleged danger or threat that you claim this Perkins guy represents, is of no concern to me. And you still have offered NO proof that he is a danger or that any KKK members are truly connected to him in any meaningful criminal way that would truly requre police interference.
The police are only provoking this guy, and in doing so they are just making any KKK members (of which Perkins has no REAL working relationship or plans to carry out hate crimes) want to seek revenge. The KKK members claim the police are out to get them and people like Perkins. So if the police go after him, that will only be confirming what they are saying and cause more people to join such groups as the KKK. More hate crimes will result by sending the police after this guy. Just leave this Perkins guy alone - it is better to have him contained in that manner than to go after him with armed agents and whatnot.
How long do you think I could keep it going until Rakuchild figures out what I am really trying to say? Wink Smile Smile I almost feel sorry for such a one-sided debate...almost. SmileSmileSmile
07-03-05, 12:23 AM Kelleygirl
quote:
Originally posted by JohnGalt:
Besides I'm white, so any alleged danger or threat that you claim this Perkins guy represents, is of no concern to me.
Beg your pardon, John, but I am white and if this character really does intend to promulgate the "teachings" of David Duke, the KKK, or white supremacy, then he does represent a very dangerous threat to my way of life and that of my family, community -- to our world. The preaching of hate knows no color/race boundaries---and becomes even uglier when it shows up entangled somehow as part of some "religious" belief.
07-03-05, 10:19 AM JohnGalt
quote: preaching of hate knows no color/race boundaries---and becomes even uglier when it shows up entangled somehow as part of some "religious" belief.
Oh God this is too easy! SmileSmileSmile There is no sport in this anymore! Frown
I'll spell this out very slowly so that you both can understand. I was NOT talking about this idiot Perkins or the KKK. You see, when Rakuchild said Perkins has "ties" to racist groups, I saw an opportunity to try and make a point about another big news item where "ties" and "links" are a big sticking point with some people. To make my point, I presented it in a facetious manner using code words in place of what I was really talking about.
Here's how to decode what I was really talking about:
* Any place I mentioned "Perkins", replace that with "Saddam."
* Any place I mentioned "KKK" replace that with "al-Q'aeda."
* Any place I mentioned "police" replace that with "military."
* Any place I mentioned "fully automatic machine guns" replace with "WMDs."
* Any place I mentioned "white" replace with "American."
So now that you know what I was REALLY talking about, I am glad to see that you both agree that preemptive military action against Saddam was so vitally important and the correct moral thing to do! Those "ties" that Perkins has with racist groups are indeed a dangerous thing - even if they are tenuous ties at best, just as Saddam's ties with al-Q'aeda are a very dangerous thing - even if they are tenuous ties at best. And just because as an American, Saddam never attacked me, to paraphrase Kellygirl's words, the preaching of hate knows no color/race (or national) boundaries---and becomes even uglier when it shows up entangled somehow as part of some "religious" belief, such as that espoused by radical Islamic fundamentalists - of which Saddam had TIES. SmileSmileSmile
07-03-05, 11:15 AM Kelleygirl John, I bow to your intellectual supremacy; I didn't "see" your ongoing gamemanship or really even care for it. If I wanted to converse in code, I guess that I would try a CIA site or something. But more importantly, I don't think that you have a valid analogy at all.
07-03-05, 12:42 PM JohnGalt Oh the analogy is valid alright! You are just upset that I have shown the left for what it really is in this matter. Clinton attacked Iraq for 8 years - not a peep from the left. Bush does the same thing, but succeeds where Clinton failed in actually capturing the murderous anti-Semitic dictator Saddam Hussein, and the left calls Bush "Hitler", "nazi", etc. and screams that Saddam should have been "contained" i.e. left in power.
You said, in response to my tongue-in-cheek reply that, as a white I have nothing to fear from Perkins:
I am white and if this character really does intend to promulgate the "teachings" of David Duke, the KKK, or white supremacy, then he does represent a very dangerous threat to my way of life and that of my family, community -- to our world.
President Bush said:
Iraq is a long way from the U.S., but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Seems like a valid analogy to me.
Rakuchild said of Perkins, How can you predict whether or not the man will ever be a threat?
Tell me how that statement differs at all from Saddam Hussein, and why Saddam is less of a threat to me as an American, than Perkins is to me as a white?
Rakuchild said , They are using the Christian church for a soapbox and getting people to support anti-gay legislation.
Tell me how that statement differs from Saddam using his power as a nation's dictator using radical fundamentalist Islam to support his anti-Jewish and anti-American agenda? And why is that less dangerous than Perkins?
Rakuchild said, Tony Perkins has ties to white supremecy [sic] organizations.
Tell me why that is more dangerous that the fact that Saddam had ties with al-Q'aeda?
All valid analogies. All valid questions.
What will not be valid are the strained excuses the left tires to come up with, after the fact, in an attempt to make Saddam look like little or no threat.
07-03-05, 01:32 PM methos Who (aside from JG) said pre-emptive action should be taken against Perkins?
Grasping at strawmen.
07-03-05, 03:00 PM JohnGalt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by methos: Who (aside from JG) said pre-emptive action should be taken against Perkins?
Grasping at strawmen.
Quote by Rakuchild:
The man bought David Duke's mailing list for political purpose and was busted for it.
Assuming Rakuchild agrees with such action, it sounds like the police were acting preemptively, because the last I heard, purchasing a mailing list (even from a scumbag like David Duke) is not illegal. If the police arrested the man, it wasn't for buying a mailing list. I'm sure the threat he represents played a large part in his arrest.
Quote by Kellygirl:
...if this character really does intend to promulgate the "teachings" of David Duke, the KKK, or white supremacy, then he does represent a very dangerous threat to my way of life and that of my family, community -- to our world.[Emphasis added.]
With that in mind, what other conclusion can one come away with other than, as "a very dangerous threat", that action should be taken against the man?
Perkins is a threat.
Saddam was a threat - an even bigger threat since he had the resources of a nation-state at his beck and call, and the under the table protection of some in the U.N.
I don't have to wait to pull out my gun and defend myself and my family against a potential threat only until after the other guy has already pulled out his and started shooting at me. Likewise, the United States does not have to wait until a mushroom cloud vaporizes an entire U.S. city to act against a known threat who has used WMDs and with ties to al-Q'aeda.
Indeed, it was democrats who chastised Bush at the 9/11 hearings for not preemptively attacking Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks! Jeesh! Give me a break! If Bush DOESN'T act preemptively, he is bad and wrong. If Bush DOES act preemptively he is bad and wrong. How in the **** do you people on the left live with yourself with such blatant hypocrisy and double standards?! What is it like to have no principles?
The constant attempts to bring up the (false) charge of a straw man, is in itself, an attempt to draw attention away from the hypocrisy of the left on this issue and their failure to answer simple questions.
07-03-05, 03:55 PM methos Perkins wasn't "busted" for purchasing a mailing list. He was "busted" (meaning caught, I don't think there were any arrests involved) for breaking FEC regulations relating to the hiding of the funds, and his boss was fined $3,000.
Calling someone a dangerous threat is hardly the same as saying they need to be arrested. Watched, yes, but arrested pre-emptively? There are plenty who think that gay marriage is a threat, or the IRS is a threat, or the patriot act is a threat. Most don't think these threats require or justify an armed solution.
07-03-05, 05:42 PM FredPuli It is an extraordinary decision, because the reasoning is so odd. It doesn't do the case any good to have tax revenue brought into the judgment. Granted the Supreme Court has tried to tiptoe a bit on that part, but what this amounts to is that the local authority can put any land up to any proposer who offers a greater tax revenue than another developer. A whole new field opens up; specialists in calculating what development is the most attractive revenue-wise, per square foot, the winner's client to get to build on the site. So long as the local government can be persuaded that there's more money in it than in leaving the homeowner or existing business as is, owning their own land,that shall be the result.
Here (UK) we have compulsory purchase. The local authority or the government in London can buy any land or any building. However this can only be done where the land is required for a road or other public amenity or public purpose e.g a new London airport, a hospital, and there is no other option. So if there's a road to be built from A to B once the route is settled the landowners will lose their land but be compensated at a rate which is settled by a tribunal but is generally a little higher than the open market rate for the land in question ( because they have lost the right to any future capital gain had the land stayed unsold).
That is what, I imagine, eminent domain was intended for, too.
07-03-05, 06:24 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by methos: Perkins wasn't "busted" for purchasing a mailing list.
First of all, I'm not the one who said it. Rakuchild said it. If it turns out not to have been the case, does that make Rakuchild a liar? I'm willing to give Rakuchild the benefit of the doubt. But by the new definition of "liar" that the left now uses, I guess there is no choice but to use that label.
Secondly, you do understand that I really wasn't talking about Perkins don't you? Can you comprehend that I was actually making a point about Saddam Hussein? Has that gotten through to anybody?! Roll Eyes
07-03-05, 07:17 PM methos Yes John. Despite your attempts to paint everyone besides you as a fool, I do realize you are talking about Saddam. My point is that the logic behind your point is flawed. No one has advocated an invation costing tens of thousands of civilian lives and nearly two thousand American lives to stop Perkins from supporting the groups he does.
Rakuchild was pointing out the background of the source in a thread entirely unrelated to Iraq and you have twisted it into another (flawed) 'consistency test' on the Iraq war. I think it is valuable to know the person behind opinions, and saying that we should know this is a far different thing than saying we should invade a country.
And yes, there should have been a "just" in my sentence. My apologies for that. You said "Assuming Rakuchild agrees with such action, it sounds like the police were acting preemptively, because the last I heard, purchasing a mailing list (even from a scumbag like David Duke) is not illegal." My point was that it was not just purchasing a mailing list, it was the way he purchased it. Raku shorthanded the charge and shouldn't have, but that still doesn't make the analogy valid.
Any chance of getting back to the subject of eminent domain, or has that bird flown?
07-03-05, 07:38 PM newnickname (Squawking and flapping noises fade into the distance...)
Talking of consistancy, here's a quote from a clear-headed thinker, pointing out that tenuous ties with right-wing extremists should not be grounds for government action against individuals:
'If any person was actually involved in helping McVeigh and Nichols carry out their murderous crime, those people should be hunted down, arrested, tried, convicted and punished. That is a legitimate function of government. However, just because some low-life white-trash somewhere thought the way McVeigh did, or even agreed or supported the sicko, they should not be arrested if they had no part in the crime. I do not want to enter the realm of "thought crimes." Thinking bad thoughts is not a crime. Carrying them out is.' - JG (Bad link to a thread in AnswerPool. - DG)
So (by analogy) pre-emptive military action against Hussein's Iraq was not the correct moral thing - we should have waited until they actually did something? Or could it be that waging war and arresting individuals are different and, as Kelleygirl says, do not provide a valid analogy?
07-03-05, 08:30 PM AMoore
quote: Originally posted by JohnGalt: - snip -
I don't have to wait to pull out my gun and defend myself and my family against a potential threat only until after the other guy has already pulled out his and started shooting at me.
- snip -
No, you don't have to, but if you don't wait, you're liable to be charged with manslaughter, and that's if you're lucky. If, on the other hand, he's lucky and gets you, he gets off on a plea of self-defence. At least, that's how it works here in the US.
The fact that you think the guy is a threat only allows you to take reasonable and prudent precuations. Like asking him to leave, for example. Only after he has become violent will violence on your part meet the "reasonable and prudent" tests.
Alan Moore
07-03-05, 09:22 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: No, you don't have to,[wait to use deadly force] but if you don't wait, you're liable to be charged with manslaughter, and that's if you're lucky.
How many years of law school have you had?
You are simply wrong. I DON'T have to wait for him to shoot first. I don't even have to see a gun in his hand. All I have to do is feel reasonably threatened and then see him make a sudden move of his hand that could reach for an out-of-sight weapon. Even if it turns out that he never had a gun, the law recognizes that as a legitimate use of deadly force.
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: Only after he has become violent will violence on your part meet the "reasonable and prudent" tests.
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: So (by analogy) pre-emptive military action against Hussein's Iraq was not the correct moral thing - we should have waited until they actually did something?
You mean like him using WMDs to kill thousands or invading one of his neighbors or hosting al-Q'aeda meetings, or paying for suicide/homocide bombers? Does any of that measure up to "reasonable and prudent" standards. How much longer did the civilized world have to wait?
Accept it. The left has lost this particular battle of the ties that Saddam had with al-Q'aeda and how that made him a legitimate target! I know it and you know it, that's why many of you are so ****** ***. But don't feel bad. There is no shame in being beaten by the best! Wink Smile Wink (That's a tongue-in-cheek joke folks! I feel that I have to explain that from now on, due to so many people not being able to figure such things out!) Smile
Saddam was a threat. Saddam had a history of violence (including using his WMDs). Saddam had ties to al-Q'aeda. Saddam had to go.
I have to go now too, so scream and yell all you want and recite whatever inane talking points it is the socialists over at [WeCan't]MoveOn.org have commanded you to chant (it's what most of you seem to be best at.)
Oh, yeah, write your representitives and tell them to whatever they can to work against the supreme Court's recent decision on eminent domain abuse.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3062 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
You mean like him using WMDs to kill thousands or invading one of his neighbors or hosting al-Q'aeda meetings, or paying for suicide/homocide bombers?
The US has used WMD's in Iraq to kill thousands. Many countries have used WMDs in the past. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons while Bush has been warmongering in the Middle East. Hussein used WMDs before (and maybe tried to use them during?) the first Gulf War. Ten years ago. At the time of Bush's invasion, there was no threat to anyone from Iraqi WMDs. There were no stockpiles of WMDs! Bush didn't even mention the term in his recent Fort Bragg speech. Yes, if sanctions had been lifted, and others once again started supplying Hussein with the means to manufacture WMD, he could have produced them sometime in the future. The appropriate action, then, was to ensure that he couldn't get hold of the materials, not to reduce the country to bloody anarchy.
The invasion of Kuwait was, likewise, dealt with a decade ago. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Hussein couldn't even project an effective military presence within his borders. There was no threat of his invading somewhere else.
'Hosting Al-Qaeda meetings' refers, I guess, to the contacts with al-Qaeda in the nineties that led to 'no collaborative relationship'. The US administration, which has much more inside knowledge of, and much more to gain from, evidence of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda (ties which might have justified the invasion) than any of us, has given up on this point. The few right-wingers who persist are sounding more and more like Elvis-sighting and JFK-assassination theorists.
Many governments and bodies in the Middle East gave (give?) money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers (who are not al-Qaeda). It was (is) a weasely kind of way to gain popular support without actually 'supporting terrorism'. Hussein was one of them. That money was nowhere near being a justification for invasion.
One more time - yes, there were ties. You could find ties between al-Qaeda and any Middle Eastern country. But there weren't ties that meant there had to be an invasion of Iraq.
(Yes, the Supreme Court Ruling is outrageous.) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 07-04-05, 01:23 AM AMoore
quote: Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: No, you don't have to,[wait to use deadly force] but if you don't wait, you're liable to be charged with manslaughter, and that's if you're lucky.
How many years of law school have you had?
You are simply wrong. I DON'T have to wait for him to shoot first. I don't even have to see a gun in his hand. All I have to do is feel reasonably threatened and then see him make a sudden move of his hand that could reach for an out-of-sight weapon. Even if it turns out that he never had a gun, the law recognizes that as a legitimate use of deadly force.
- snip -
You are absolutely correct that you only have to feel reasonably threatened. That is to say, that a reasonable and prudent person would feel threatened in your situation.
Moreover, you have to convince a jury in the formal and peaceful courtroom setting of the reasonableness of your feeling of being threatened. You will be asked why you assumed that the sudden hand movement that you claimed you saw was a movement to grasp a weapon. You will be asked what you had already done (since you already felt threatened) to avoid or defuse the situation. In short, unless your victim was a well-known dangerous criminal and your own position within the community absolutely beyond reproach you are extremely unlikely to escape unscathed. And quite properly so, in my opinion. Your attitude, should you actually go armed, makes you a danger to those around you. They have no way of knowing whether or not you feel threatened.
Alan Moore
07-04-05, 08:49 AM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: In short, unless your victim was a well-known dangerous criminal...
You mean someone like Saddam Hussein?
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: ...and your own position within the community absolutely beyond reproach...
Once again you are incorrect. One does not have to be within the "upper crust" of society to have the right of self-defense.
There is even a scenario whereby one may shoot a knowingly unarmed attacker.
Let's set up a hypothetical situation to explain:
We need a date, let's make it April of 1978. We need a place, so let's pick a place at random...the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. Let's say a woman, we'll call her, oh, I don't know... Juanita. Juanita is there attending a convention. Let's say a serial sexual predator tricks this woman into coming up to his room. Once there, he rips her clothing, viciously bites her and begins to violently rape her. Even if the scumbag man had no weapon at all and Juanita knew the predator had no weapons, there is a concept in law known as disparity of force. This is when "body weapons" (fists, feet, etc.) can be reasonably assumed to be capable and likely to cause grave bodily harm against the victim. If our Juanita had a gun, she could have pulled it out and put as many bullets into the rapists' head as was necessary to make him stop raping her but no more. She would be legally and morally justified in doing so.
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: Your attitude, should you actually go armed...
I do! Smile Smile Smile
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: ...makes you a danger to those around you.
I'm a danger?! Roll Eyes But Saddam Hussein is not!? Roll Eyes Typical liberal. You're projecting your own character flaws and the seetehing anger and guilt deep within you onto me. Just because you would recklessly pull out a gun in anger at someone you didn't like, does not mean that others would do the same. I've been carrying a concealed firearm now for over a decade. Never once have I even thought of pulling it out in anger or when a situation didn't call for it. I don't think your buddy Saddam has gone more than 10 days without killing an innocent person. But you still trust him over me. That is why your buddy Kerry lost the election. The remaining rational people of America can see through such nonsense.
07-04-05, 09:49 AM methos JG - Don't you ever tire of these so-called consitency tests? Or of your conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton is a rapist?
Back on the subject of eminent domain, figuring out what the laws are in different states might be useful. According to the Associated Press, "Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question."
07-04-05, 09:57 AM newnickname There's a comparison with the Canadian 'system' of private property rights here - answerpool.com. It's not really a system, I guess; it's on the British model - common sense, common law and compromise. Such a 'loose' system might actually give individuals more protection than one based on a written constitution, in some cases; if, by strict and logical interpretation of the written statutes, you arrive at a self-evidently silly conclusion, it's OK to tear it up and do the right thing anyway. "Not speaking clearly to the question" is sometimes a good thing.
07-04-05, 06:59 PM frankvan
quote: I've been carrying a concealed firearm now for over a decade. Never once have I even thought of pulling it out in anger or when a situation didn't call for it.
Why not just line your hat with tinfoil ? Wink
07-04-05, 07:21 PM FredPuli " ..or when a situation didn't call for it" That's the interesting bit. So have there been situations which did call for it,? My goodness, isn't the US an exciting place to live ! You can carry a gun around for ten years and sometimes, if you are lucky (or unlucky ? ) be in a situation that calls for it to be produced.
Sorry, we don't get that in Newmarket or in Antibes. Do you know, I just haven't lived.Come to think of it I don't know anywhere , even where criminals are about , where the situation would call for it. Bit academic though; I couldn't buy a handgun anyway Smile.
And owning a gun won't help you. In fact, according to the latest FBI statistics … just owning a gun can actually get you killed. Because… while 75% of cops who get shot in the line of duty get shot with their own gun… over 95% of civilians who get shot get shot with their own gun! Eek
07-04-05, 09:11 PM DorianGreyed Earlier today, I made the comment that Scotty's citing Bush as a source for what is happening in Iraq was the funniest thing I had ever read on the Internet. Frank, your "Why not just line your hat with tinfoil" just pushed that down to second. I'm sorry, John, I really don't mean to offend you, but that line of Franks' is truly priceless.
07-04-05, 10:55 PM AMoore
quote: Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: In short, unless your victim was a well-known dangerous criminal...
You mean someone like Saddam Hussein?
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: ...and your own position within the community absolutely beyond reproach...
Once again you are incorrect. One does not have to be within the "upper crust" of society to have the right of self-defense.
There is even a scenario whereby one may shoot a knowingly unarmed attacker.
Let's set up a hypothetical situation to explain:
We need a date, let's make it April of 1978. We need a place, so let's pick a place at random...the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. Let's say a woman, we'll call her, oh, I don't know... Juanita. Juanita is there attending a convention. Let's say a serial sexual predator tricks this woman into coming up to his room. Once there, he rips her clothing, viciously bites her and begins to violently rape her. Even if the scumbag man had no weapon at all and Juanita knew the predator had no weapons, there is a concept in law known as disparity of force. This is when "body weapons" (fists, feet, etc.) can be reasonably assumed to be capable and likely to cause grave bodily harm against the victim. If our Juanita had a gun, she could have pulled it out and put as many bullets into the rapists' head as was necessary to make him stop raping her but no more. She would be legally and morally justified in doing so.
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: Your attitude, should you actually go armed...
I do! Smile Smile Smile
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: ...makes you a danger to those around you.
I'm a danger?! Roll Eyes But Saddam Hussein is not!? Roll Eyes Typical liberal. You're projecting your own character flaws and the seetehing anger and guilt deep within you onto me. Just because you would recklessly pull out a gun in anger at someone you didn't like, does not mean that others would do the same. I've been carrying a concealed firearm now for over a decade. Never once have I even thought of pulling it out in anger or when a situation didn't call for it. I don't think your buddy Saddam has gone more than 10 days without killing an innocent person. But you still trust him over me. That is why your buddy Kerry lost the election. The remaining rational people of America can see through such nonsense.
Let me simply remind you that you were the one who suggested you might blow someone away simply because you thought you were in danger, and he made a sudden move.
There are many reasons why you might feel threatened. Infrasound, for example, has caused widespread panic, with victims reporting feelings of great danger, impending doom, and so forth. The presence of infrasound, together with a generally armed populace is a sure formula for disaster. Indeed, infrasound has been investigated as a weapon of great military potential.
But infrasound is not the only reason for feeling threatened that has nothing whatever to do with another person actually being a threat to you. Low barometric pressure can have this effect, some diseases have been known to manifest themselves in this way. Depression, left untreated, agoraphobia and other fairly well known conditions can cause their victims to feel threatened.
None of these has ever been accepted as a valid defence at trial, so far as I know.
By the way, I am a conservative, not a liberal. With particular respect to firearms, I am an opponent of greater restrictions on gun ownership, and a proponent of relaxing the restrictions on gun posession that we have in this area. But this is based on my personal experiences, and on local history and conditions. And I am, by no means, an advocate of casually pulling the trigger just because someone moves suddenly at a moment of high tension. That kind of thing is the reason we've got all the firearms regulation we have. And as long as there are those, like you, who advocate this. We'll continue to get more of it, so don't you go calling yourself a conservative, because you're not a conservative. You are advocating an important fundamental change in our system of criminal justice.
Getting back to the original topic of the thread, I'd have to say that, while I don't like the decision on eminent domain, it hinges on what is meant by "public good." If one accepts that increased local government revenue benefits the public, then the decision is correct.
Alan Moore
07-05-05, 03:28 AM Fourbrick2
quote: Why not just line your hat with tinfoil ?
Every now and again a shaft of sunlight lights up the day. I doff my hat to Frank.
07-05-05, 02:25 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by frankvan:
quote: I've been carrying a concealed firearm now for over a decade. Never once have I even thought of pulling it out in anger or when a situation didn't call for it.
Why not just line your hat with tinfoil ? Wink
I can't. There's a huge tin foil shortage from all my AP "opponents" using it in their hats!
Perhaps you can get AMoore to give up just a bit of the tin foil out of his hat that he uses to protect himself against those evil mind control rays, or whatever it is he was babbling about a few posts up! Smile I won't line my hat with it, but I will use it to cook some crow for you to eat now that we know that Kerry is slightly dumber than Bush! Smile Wink Smile
07-05-05, 02:31 PM JohnGalt
quote:
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I'm sorry, John, I really don't mean to offend you, but that line of Franks' is truly priceless.
I'm not offended DG, and you shouldn't feel sorry. In fact, I enjoy a good "zinger" (even aimed at me) as much as the next guy. But FV's reference simply doesn't make sense! Those who need tin foil hats are those who believe in wild conspiracy theories. I guess that Frankvan could be engaging in some more projection:
Teddy Kennedy, who said, "This [Iraq war] was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically," needs a tin foil hat (and swimming and driving lessons!)
Madeleine Albright, who said, "Do you suppose that the Bush Administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" needs a tin foil hat.
Theresa Heinz Kerry, who said, "I wouldn't be surprised if he [bin Laden] appeared in the next month [just prior to the election to help Bush get votes]", needs a tin foil hat.
James Carville, who said, "They [republicans] probably shot him [Zell Miller] up with something," needs a tin foil hat.
Walter Cronkite, who said, "I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing," needs a tin foil hat.
Howard Dean, who said, "The most interesting theory that I've heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved – is that he [Bush] was warned ahead of time by the Saudis [about 9/11]," needs a tin foil hat.
Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott, who said, "I don't know if it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he [Saddam Hussein] was," needs a tin foil hat.
Michael Moore, who has said [Well, I guess you could just insert almost anything and everything that he has yelled out of his anti-American mouth - they nearly are all crazy conspiracy theories], needs a tin foil hat.
Someone who believes that the election was hacked, needs a tin foil hat.
Someone who believes fluoride in our water is an evil threat, such as loonie lefty Ralph Nader, needs a tin foil hat.
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: Let me simply remind you that you were the one who suggested you might blow someone away simply because you thought you were in danger, and he made a sudden move.
That is factually incorrect. I was simply pointing out another factually incorrect comment of yours as to how the law recognizes certain uses of deadly force for self-defense situations.
quote: Originally posted by AMoore: ...so don't you go calling yourself a conservative, because you're not a conservative.
I challenge you to find where I have ever called myself a conservative. I'll tell you right now that I am not a conservative. SmileSmileSmile
07-05-05, 07:27 PM frankvan
quote: Besides, I have already used the tin foil hat gag several times myself. Why don't I get credit when I use the same joke a year before Frankvan? At least mine were used in the correct context.
Sorry, John. I didn't realize you had a copywright that still hadn't expired after all these years. I think I first heard the term used in 1938. But as to the correct context, I would have thought it applied more to the paranoia evidenced by those who are overly wary of the motives of the numbers of people out to do them harm. Since I honestly believe that most people are decent and law abiding, and pose no threat to me, I feel that carrying a concealed weapon at all times demonstrates paranoid tendencies: hence the tinfoil defense against harmful rays. I think you must admit that your armed defense against the general populace was an open invitation for a little good-natured reproof. Peace?]
08-01-05, 10:37 PM AMoore Just a quick follow-up to this item.
Radio commentator Dave Ross took it as his theme for a recent broadcast.
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Sorry, John. I didn't realize you had a copywright that still hadn't expired after all these years. I think I first heard the term used in 1938. But as to the correct context, I would have thought it applied more to the paranoia evidenced by those who are overly wary of the motives of the numbers of people out to do them harm. Since I honestly believe that most people are decent and law abiding, and pose no threat to me, I feel that carrying a concealed weapon at all times demonstrates paranoid tendencies: hence the tinfoil defense against harmful rays. I think you must admit that your armed defense against the general populace was an open invitation for a little good-natured reproof. Peace?
Never anything other than peace between us as far as I am concerned!
Yep, I used my time machine to go back before 1938 to patent the invention and copyright the phrase. Luckily the tin foil protects the brain from the time travel process. Wink
As for paranoia...
Your one-year odds of dying in a car crash are approximately 17,625 to 1. Do you carry automobile insurance that covers your accidental death in a car? If so, do you consider that paranoid? And is putting on your seatbelt paranoid? Granted, it is the law that you must have car insurance (and wear a seat belt in most states) so let's take another example...
The one-year odds of you dying in a fire in your home are approximately 113,676 to 1. Do you carry insurance on you and your house for such an eventuality? If so, do you consider yourself paranoid? And don't tell me you have any of those wacky smoke detectors in your house either! Only the paranoids would have those nutty things with the odds being what they are.
Out of respect, I won't ask the next question with you as the specific hypothetical, but rather in a general sense...
The odds of a heterosexual, non-IV drug using male contracting AIDS from a female via heterosexual contact is 2.4 percent (and that's over 10 years.) Would you recommend to the single straight males out there not to wear a condom when they are out on the town doing the deed? If they did wear one, would you call them paranoid?
Do your lock your doors at night? Paranoid! Do you get vaccinated? Paranoid!
What you call "paranoid" I call being responsible. Wink
As for the gun, the police are under no legal obligation to protect me, you or any other Citizen. That is not their job. Remember the L.A riots when the overwhelmed police had no choice by to drive past all those people who needed help? What did all of your like-minded Californians do when that was going on? They ran to the gun stores only to find they voted themselves in a 7-day waiting period! Whoops! Forget calling anyone paranoid. They simply were not prepared.
Peace!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
) What was 14-0 For became 14-0 Against. Even a small group of people can change things sometimes. 
But FV's reference simply doesn't make sense! 
Those who need tin foil hats are those who believe in wild conspiracy theories. I guess that Frankvan could be engaging in some more projection:
