Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land

[wingman]

Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land By ANNE SAUNDERS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 29, 2:03 PM ET



PLAINFIELD, N.H. - Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.




Organizers are trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.

"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman.

The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David Souter's home. Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."

The efforts are meant in protest of the high court's June ruling that let a Connecticut city take land by eminent domain and turn it over to a private developer. Breyer and Souter supported the decision.

Through a spokesman, Breyer declined to comment on the matter Friday. Souter has also declined comment.

Plainfield Town Administrator Steve Halleran said he didn't expect Plainfield voters to support the Breyer effort, but Logan Darrow Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's gotten support from thousands of people across the country for his Souter plan, and the town clerk in Weare said she had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 court ruling lets officials in New London, Conn., take older homes along the city's waterfront for a private developer who plans to build offices, a hotel and convention center.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I saw the guy behind this being interviewed last night. I like the idea. Let them live with the consequences of the injustices that they perpetrate on the rest of us. Perfectly legit, considering their rulings. I hope it works. In fact, if it ever came to the Supreme Court, those justices would have to recuse themselves, so it would be Thomas et al who will decide the case. LOL.

 

[CAnnoneer]

A cook should be ready to eat his own broth.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Through a spokesman, Breyer declined to comment on the matter Friday. Souter has also declined comment.

Lord high justices disdain to address commoners.

 

[mountainclmbr]

There should be a way to find that it is worth about a buck fifty. No more than that. Maybe much less. For the benefit of the Government that is taking it!!!

 

[Vang]

Anyone who thinks this is funny or logical hasn't read the decision. I do not agree with the decision (I don't, after all, think eminent domain should ever be used), but the reality is that the standard is higher than "I want it."

 

[AZRickD]

Indeed. The standard is not just "I want it" from a rich developer.

Nay, the rich developer must then get 3 out of 5 city councilmembers to vote on his side. Them's pretty high standards.

Of course, he will do this just as he contributes to their campaigns and/or promises jobs to their next of kin.

This ruling invites fraud.

I think it amusing how people were yammering on the selection of NHampshire by the Libertarians as part of the Free State movement given that NH narrowly voted for Kerry in 2004. Oh what fun as they conduct this activism and potentially swing NH from Demo-Blue to GOP-Red (even though the colors were reversed in 1996 and 2000).

Rick

 

[c_yeager]

So, i take it that hypocrisy is a means that is justified by the end?

This guy is against this ruling (so am I btw) and his solution is to be the first one to make use of it? Im sorry, but if i think something is unethical or unjust i think i will make a point of *not* doing it. There are ways to fight this ruling that dont require one to make a mockery of their own views.

 

[Coronach]

Actually, I would think that in a just world the use of eminent domain to take land for public use (read: a park) would be OK, as a concept. It is the use of eminent domain to acquire the land and then turning it over to someone for their own use (read: a development company) that is galling.

So, if these guys really wanted to make a point, they should take Breyer's and Souter's houses and put up a strip mall, not a park. They should also get rich on the deal, just to make the point crystal clear.

Still, good for them. Kelo is an odious decision.

Mike

 

[Igloodude]

Man, I love my state.

And this is hardly "end justifies the means" if the whole point of it is to show the justices how their decision can be applied to "random citizens".

 

[Zrex]

Theft is theft, and an asinine ruling by some folks in black robes does not make it right. If you really believe that something is unjust, you fight it; you don't turn around and do the same thing to punish your enemies. That just makes you a hypocrite, kind of like that old whore in California that wants to ban guns yet carries one herself.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Theft is theft, and an asinine ruling by some folks in black robes does not make it right. If you really believe that something is unjust, you fight it; you don't turn around and do the same thing to punish your enemies. That just makes you a hypocrite, kind of like that old whore in California that wants to ban guns yet carries one herself.

No, a more accurate analogy is to force antigun legislators to place a sign on their front door proclaiming to the world that their house is a gun free zone. I say, make the tyrants suffer the consequences of their own unjust and illegal rulings. Great idea.

 

[Rebar]

I say, turn around is fair play.

given that NH narrowly voted for Kerry in 2004.

The massive voter fraud in NH is only dwarfed by the complete blackout of coverage of it. Busloads of Massachusett students and union thugs drove from polling place to polling place in NH, voted. We have THR members who were eyewitnesses to it.

 

[Marshall]

John Kerry 340,019
George Bush 330,848


9,171 vote difference out of 670,867

Considering the fraud, it was pretty close especially considering Kerry's home state is NH's southern border. Doesn't speak well for Mr. John Kerry-Heinz..

 

[Fletchette]

Theft is theft, and an asinine ruling by some folks in black robes does not make it right. If you really believe that something is unjust, you fight it; you don't turn around and do the same thing to punish your enemies. That just makes you a hypocrite, kind of like that old whore in California that wants to ban guns yet carries one herself.

Zrex,

If the justices tried to STOP the taking of their land, they would be hypocrites. They did, afterall, say it was legal for the government to seize property and give it to a private entity (corporation). This seems like Justice to me!

 

[ravinraven]

Here we go again!

My friend's girlfriend went to Weare. She got back last Tuesday. She went to visit her sister. While there, she and her brother-in-law took a ride down the road Sauter's house is on. The house was surrounded by big cars and big shots in suits. He chickened out and turned around and got out of there. A week or so before that, the Weare police force [both men] were guarding the place.

As far as using the poison the rats have developed to fight those same rats: Get 'er done! What better way to demonstrate the depths "we the people" have sunk to by allowing these particular rats to rule us than to show the people how rotten their ruling is in a high profile case. Fighting a thousand actions where mom and pop are losing their homesteads won't be noticed. Getting even one rat's nest away from a high profile rat will damn sure be noticed by the rats. At least the rats will have to spend money and time in court defending their nests.

I'm against abortion too. But if I could find a time machine and go back to where these rats were embryos, this ruling would not stand today.

Now there's an idea: retroactive birth control.

rr

 

[Vang]

AZRickD, the decision did not mandate states to allow eminent domain.

The decision said, basically, "states can use eminent domain as long as they do the following:" You can read "the following" yourself, but, to be clear, this decision was an action by the Supreme Court to allow states to set their own standards instead of allowing 9 men in robes to decide what was or was not "public use."

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but you should understand it before criticizing it.

 

[buzz_knox]

It did a bit more than set standards for the application of eminent domain. The primary focus of outrage has been the fact that the Court will now allow a public benefit derived from private development to justify eminent domain. Previously, there had to be a public use for the initial taking, even if the property was subsequently used for private development. Now, the gov't can simply state "we'll get more tax revenue from a strip mall than private residences" and that defeats any claim of inappropriate taking.

 

[Baba Louie]

Nay, the rich developer must then get 3 out of 5 city councilmembers to vote on his side. Them's pretty high standards.

Hahahaha. Yes the life of a wealthy developer is pretty tough what with all the trials and tribulations of political campaign parties, mingling with Mayors, City/County Council members... it's gotta be hard work, making money like that. The risks are huge!

sigh

Being a large Developer with more money than Joe-Homeowner, they could even call on their Campaign Contribution recipients to see how much money they might be needing for the next upcoming election and might just happen to get lucky enough to get 3 out of 5 votes. Certainly if their development will bring in money into said local government coffers, it could be done... for the children. And we all know elected officials love doing things for the kids...
right?

Gotta Love The Golden Rule... He who has the most Gold makes the Rules.

Why, I've even heard tell that they sometimes get massive tax breaks from the local governing agencies to develop their newfound piece of land.

Is this a great country or what?

Here in Las Vegas, we've been through so many politicans playing that game it's hard to keep score who's in jeopardy, who's got the FBI sniffing around them and who's retiring a little wealthier than when they entered politics.

And so it goes. Big Fish eat little fish. Hardly ever works the other way unless we're talking about a school of pirahna. And nobody in gov't likes to think about a school of vicous little armed fish running things, like gov't, do they?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And so it goes. Big Fish eat little fish. Hardly ever works the other way unless we're talking about a school of pirahna. And nobody in gov't likes to think about a school of vicous little armed fish running things, like gov't, do they?

No, they prefer a pond full of toothless guppies. The teeth of liberty can bite back.

 

[RevDisk]

So, i take it that hypocrisy is a means that is justified by the end?

This guy is against this ruling (so am I btw) and his solution is to be the first one to make use of it? Im sorry, but if i think something is unethical or unjust i think i will make a point of *not* doing it. There are ways to fight this ruling that dont require one to make a mockery of their own views.

If the libs were using this against a party not directly involved, you'd be very much correct. This would make Breyer be punished for his own actions. I fail to see how that is unethical. "If you want to make this hideous evil act legal, you should be the first one to personally have your land taken from you."

It not only punishes those that should be punished, it has a chance of making certain Justices take a bit more notice of what they pass. If they believe they are above the law, they can and will do anything. If they are stung by their own words and action, they might be a bit more reflective of the damage they do to liberty.

 

[Vang]

The decision was not in support of eminent domain (it didn't say states had to allow it), but in support of the states' rights.

I disagree with the decision (I don't think it should be an issue of states' rights), but you should at least be clear about the decision.

 

[buzz_knox]

I am clear about the decision. And it wasn't so much about state's rights as about the balance between the right to own one's property versus the state's power (state's have no rights, remember? They are wholly artificial creations of the people and only have those powers and duties granted to them by the people) to take that property. Formerly, that power to take property was restricted to using it for a public use. Now, the public use is strictly economic, and the state can redistribute wealth in the form of property from one private party to another at its discretion. You should also recall that in this case, there was no proof that there would be an economic benefit.

You shouldn't try to minimize this decision. It means far more than you are letting on.

 

[Don Gwinn]

This statement:

The decision was not in support of eminent domain

Is not really supported by this statement:

(it didn't say states had to allow it),

First of all, Eminent Domain is not the taking of land for private uses. Eminent Domain is the concept of the government's ability to take land. In the U.S. Constitution, it's limited to taking for public uses with just compensation. Being "in support of eminent domain" and being in support of "taking private land for private uses" are emphatically NOT the same thing.

Secondly, there's a lot of space between being "in support" of something, and mandating that same thing as a matter of law. Your argument is analogous to stating that a baseball manager doesn't support steroid use if he doesn't mandate that every player use steroids (He just looks the other way and covers a few backsides while 5 or 6 guys on the cusp gear up.) Obviously, if he's facilitating and allowing steroid use among his players, he supports it. That's what "support" means. Similarly, if the Supreme Court is telling state governments, who it has previously found are bound by the 5th Amendment, that they are allowed to disregard the words "for public use" and engage in takings for private use instead, then they're "in support of" eminent domain takings for private uses. Don't take my word for it. The decision says very clearly that the logic used to support this decision is that by taking land for a private use which increases tax revenues, the public benefits (because we all know that higher tax revenues, by definition, mean public benefit.) Furthermore, the decision continues, if these private uses benefit the public ( a VERY big "if") then they must be considered "public uses" and not private uses. Therefore, the decision concludes, private uses which result in higher tax revenue are actually NOT private uses (your third grade English teacher was an idiot) but, in fact, public uses, and therefore magically become legal under the Constitution.

 

[Marshall]

Nothing like twisting meanings until you get what you want.