Welcome to PatsFans.com

NH Thanks David Souter

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Nov 8, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Mr. Souter, thanks to your decision in Kelo vs. New London, whereby you allowed the state to take peoples homes for corporate profit, we now have amended our constitution in NH to prevent you from losing your mansion (Lost Liberty Hotel).

    Thanks David, your bad decision opened our eyes. Your home is now safe.
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Except the Feds could still take it, not being bound by the NH constitution.
  3. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its unfair to pick on the Supreme Court for limiting the federal government's power. The Supremes never said that this was a good thing. They said that it was something that the Feds had no business deciding. Blame Connecticut, first this totalitarian land grab and then they send Lieberman the turncoat back to the Senate. Not to mention their attempted theft of the Pats.
  4. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Good points both. Im surprised how little traction this issue got among self-proclaimed conservatives. This is another indication how far the cons have come from their roots. How did that happen?
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,971
    Likes Received:
    99
    Ratings:
    +176 / 5 / -22

    Maybe I am missing something here, but doesn't a Supreme Court decision rely on the majority to decide something, Souter may have written it (or more than likely a law clerk wrote it), but a majority of Justices have to agree. If they do not agree then it becomes a dissenting minority opinion. Why blame Souter, or is this another RW talking point???
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,740
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +164 / 4 / -4

    Here's a pretty good short article on eminent

    domain:http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html

    I've never shared the view that private property is so sacrosanct that it should always supercede the legitimate needs of the community. If a city government want to get rid of a junk yard to build a private nursing home, I don't think I'd be against it. If a private daycare center wants to expand, but there's private home in the way, I don't think I'd be against that either. The key is there must be fair compensation and an adequate appeals process. That said, the New London example was one I would have opposed, since there seemed to be no good reason why eminent domain had to be used.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    Well then where do you draw the line? When is stealing someones private property acceptable and when is it not? If you can steal it for a nursing home, then can you steal it for a Wal-Mart? What is the difference? Ultimately the justification for said theft would have to be based on it being to the benefit of the community right? Well one could argue that a Wall-Mart would bring in more jobs, more commercial property taxes, and higher consumer traffic versus a nursing home. My point in all of this is principle. Once you begin to stray from the principle of eminent domain you are permitting the theft of personal property for reason none other than monetary profit. For greed. I for one would understand scenario's by which a city or town may very well need to hijack a property for the sake of the community (maybe threatening to take over an abondoned crack house in the heart of a neighborhood), but once you start forcefully taking it to build a Wal-Mart you loose me.
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,740
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +164 / 4 / -4

    I think our system has built in checks and balances. In a conservative area, it's unlikely that eminent domain would be used to give private property to a private business. If that happened, those politicians would be thrown out. In a liberal area, it's more likely that private property would be taken and given for a worthy private cause. Using your example, I would think the crack house would have more protection against eminent domain in a conservative area, especially a libertarian one, than a liberal area. And like I said, there needs to be an effective appeals process. If the government came in and tried to take my home so that a WalMart's could be established, I would fight it tooth and nail, and to do so, I would have to understand the merits of the government's action.
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I always see liberals bringing up the point of local control & community standards... but only when it comes to eminent domain. If it's OK to take away peoples' houses in liberal areas, why shouldn't it be OK to discriminate against minorities in conservative areas?

    The reasoning against eminent domain is the same reasoning against government intrusion into marriage: civil rights (which include the right to own property) should not be subject to the whim of a majority.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2006
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,740
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +164 / 4 / -4

    If you can make a case why discrimination might be better for a community, you'd have a point. I believe, as most Americans do, that discrimination hurts America. I think you badly misunderstand the civil rights movement if you think it's only about about protecting minorities. Civil rights has made the country better for all of us, and I would think an immigrant (which I think you said you were) of all people would understand that. By protecting a minority group, gays for instance, we also protect their family, reduce violence, build communities, creates new opportunities, and so on. Didn't you once imply that you're an immigrant? Maybe I got it wrong, but those I got new for you if you are one: those of us who support immigrant rights do it not as some form as noble charity, but because we think it's better for America.
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you RW...it gets really ticky tack to determine what community improvements should/would be beneficial. This is where there is actually a strong correlation between free market and urban renewal. Urban renewal will occur in cycles without government intervention if economic growth is maintained. Dont get me wrong...I think that sustainable community design is very important, but not a government-forcible action through eminent domain. We dont need crooks making land grabs at artificially low market values only to turn around and make a killing off a corporate-government partnership.

    Thats very unsettling to me. Better off to just give personal property owners the rights to their land and keep the beaurocrats/police powers out of it.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    What does being liberal or conservative have to do with hijacking a persons private home? I live in Massachusetts, is my right to property less than that of Joe Dirt in Tennessee? Different rights for different people I guess? Typical. Someone's property should not be fugged with at all, unless a matter of national/extreme importance. I would concede that there may very well be instances of absolute need, but Wal-Marts, nursing homes, a city yard, or condo's is not absolute need. Absolute need may be an instance where a bridge is failing and therefore one might need to confiscate adjacent property to build a new one before the old one falls down. Extreme and special circumstances may exist, but beautification and revenue are not one of them. If cities and towns need to increase revenues so badly, then maybe they should consider spending less.
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2


    The issue for most isn't protecting civil rights or minorites, it's about the reverse discrimination that takes place in doing so. When you have such things as hate crimes & cop killer laws, you are legally saying that a crime against a gay man is worse than a crime against other men. When you say the murder of a police officer deserves a harsher punishment than the murder of John Doe, you are certifying that John Doe's life, and rights, are not the equal of said police officer. Before posting in political forums, I never realized this very perspective. Whereas I understand the purpose of the laws we speak of, we can't loose sight of the irony in there purpose.

    Back to eminent domain. My house in Chelsea should be treated no differently than that of my neighbor next door. Our homes should not be treated any differently than that of my cousins in NH. My cousins in NH should not be treated any differently than that of my friends in North Carolina....
  14. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The "helping the community standard" is subjective and total fluff. What if a community somewhere decides that for THEM, discrimination has helped? Maybe it made them into a very tight-knit group and made them all feel good. Notice how all politicians, always, say that they're helping the community? No one does something and admits it hurts the community.
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    There are ways by which developers & local governments can legally position themselves to buy & renovate land. My issue with government is easily illustrated by this topic. For example, Eminent domain has never been a serious problem. However, as loon extremists enter office and begin to stray from the principles of the law, we begin to see a problem arise. At first said loons confiscate an abandoned building to nobody's disdain. Then they move to hijack an undeveloped field that no one really noticed as it had been undeveloped. Well, now the loons get greedier and start to take Joe Blow's house to build a Wal-Mart, or Ben Dovers land to build condos. Each justified with a "Save the children" sales pitch to the public. Afterall, Joe Blow only pays $1,200 in taxes, while that Wal-Mart will bring in $95,000. With $95,000, we can "save the children". More school books, more police, more catored lunches, more expense paid dinners, higher public wages, etc...

    In a nutshell, the problems are never welfare, military spending, education funding, Eminent Domain, etc...the problems are the level of extremism that each reach.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,740
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +164 / 4 / -4

    You're mistaken. Hate crime laws do not single out groups in the way you think. I believe all hate crime laws use terms like sexual orientation, religion, race, etc. That means that if a group of gays beat up a straight person, it could be a hate crime.

    This is a more complex issue, but I suppose the theory is that because police have to put themselves in harm's way, they need extra protection.

    But, I'm a liberal, and if the city knocked on my door and said they wanted to give me fair market value because I lived on the only piece of land suitable for a school for disabled kids, I think I'd be okay with it. Others might not feel that way; that's their right. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't be living in a community like this. One size doesn't always fit everyone.
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So communities can also ban gay marriage if they feel it's in their best interest? People who object can move, after all.
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    Need I say more everyone? :D


    This is why I despise liberal ideology so much. Because Patters would do it, then EVERYONE has to also. Regardless of what the laws are, or what the Constitution says, Patters and his ilk know better. We're sitting here talking about civil rights and equality, something which liberals claim to stand for, yet, the liberal in the group feels that a cops life is worth more than mine, and that I should should have my home stolen because he would. Oh, and did I mention that one size doesn't always fit all. So basically, PAtters is going to decide for everyone what size we're each going to wear.

    :confused:
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    How about banning interracial relationships? Maybe have a whites only town? How about a Christian only city? Maybe a city council could ban fat people, old people, sick people, the handicapped, etc... How about a mandate that says that to live in Candyland you need to make a minimum of $1 million annually.
  20. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Great debate. Its nice to see for a change. I wish Wistah would chime in. I know he feels strongly about the issue.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>