I am on the ammendment bandwagon ... I wrote my senator about it already.
|
|
|
|
|
I am on the ammendment bandwagon ... I wrote my senator about it already.
Come on, Cartek, you are as much BIG BUSINESS as is Jimmy Carter!!Originally Posted by CARTEK
The Republican Party is controlled by BIG BUSINESS and they love this decision. Not to mention all those Republican big city mayors!
All those home owners can get a pretty penny for those houses of theirs and move uptown to some fancier digs.
The only problem as I see it is that I'm starting to sound like some Republican fat cat.
i have a feeling if you said that to his face, you'd walk away with a broken nose.
I doubt it. Jimmy Carter did have a pretty good size peanut operation.
That's not what Rosslyn said!
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
Who's Rosslyn?
I assume he refers to the former First Lady Rosslyn Carter.
ARI Letters to the Editor
"Public" Use vs. Property Rights
Thursday, June 23, 2005
By: David Holcberg
Dear Editor:
In another heavy blow to property rights, the Supreme Court has ruled against the homeowners in the New London, Connecticut, eminent domain case, and further entrenched the legal principle that government can seize an individual's property for "public use" whenever it deems appropriate.
The justification the Court offered for violating the property rights of New London homeowners was that the taking of their property and its transfer to others would bring "benefits to the community," including "new jobs and increased tax revenue."
But it should not matter that the government's seizure of legally owned property might increase tax revenue or supposedly benefit the local economy. If a person does not want to sell his property, he should not be forced to do so.
Even though the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it legal for the government to use eminent domain, there is, in fact, no moral justification for the violation of property rights. Individual rights should never be sacrificed, and certainly not to promote some alleged and indefinable "public" good.
As this case demonstrates, "public use" is a term so vague as to have given government virtually unlimited power in using eminent domain to take property away from its legitimate owners.
And as Ayn Rand has pointed out, the "public" as such does not exist. Only individuals exist. Whenever governments act to promote the "public" good, or to advance a "public" purpose, or to satisfy a "public" need--beware. For what invariably happens in such cases is that some individuals are forced by the state to sacrifice for other individuals.
It is no coincidence that appeals to the "public" good have been used by dictatorships throughout history to justify tyranny over the individual. Thanks to the deplorable decision by five justices of the Supreme Court, America is a big step closer to tyranny and away from the freedom America's founders intended to establish.
David Holcberg
There is the main problem. They need to more narrowly define this and shoot this bull crap down. I dont want to be some Socialist state where the government can just do what they want.
Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this. The community will benefit from the extra businesses and income. Also, it's not like these people are just being thrown on the street. They are going go get at least fair market value for their houses. Just buy another house.
DD, come on man. It is the shift of private property through government action, that is socialism. Who cares if you get fair market value if you dont want to move. This is not of the American way of rugged individualism. This is the government forcing its will because it thinks it knows better than the people do. Rather it will benefit is besides the point. I am sure they could build somewhere else without having to tear down people's houses and make them move. I hope they build it and people boycott that crap and it flushes down the toilet, now that would be a good choice.
I don't think this has much to do with the "government" doing what that they want to do. It has EVERYTHING to do with big business doing what they want to do.
Well, the government is facilitating it, so they are equally to blame I guess. The buck stops with the government on this one though because they could shoot this down but i am sure they are getting bribed or whatever. This isnt big business kicking them off of their land, that would be illegal, so they are using legal channels that dont have to do what they want them to.
either way...this is a dangerous thing. incidently, some would say "government" and "big business" are the same thing...that's a joke but it's probably going to get me a red dot.
DH, someone has to take an adversarial role. Champ967 doesn't post here anymore. The usual liberals are on the conservative side. As a former liberal turned moderate (sorry maddawg I know you don't believe in moderates) I feel I might try to do the job. I'll risk the red that comes. Plus, I'm in the middle of working many nights in a row so the sleep depravation is beginning to play tricks on me. Maybe bro-in-law, Sooner, will come to my rescue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
