Comments on: Pfizer not going to need those New London homes seized, after all.

By: LDahl752

LDahl752 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:13:46 +0000

are there because they’ve snowed the voters just as much as the D’s have. If only we had more “principled” candidates and elected representatives and senators like Fred Thompson and a GOP leadership who cared as much about the country, our liberty, our prosperity and our ability to survive as a free nation as he did. They simply don’t “get it.” Once our economy has been destroyed by their insane legislation, the citizenry will be forced to focus on personal survival far more than reversing all the damage currently being done in Washington, D.C. Term limits for the entire Congress is about the only thing that will rein in these career politicians — and, I just can’t imagine that happening in my lifetime. These are dark days. Yes, I will do whatever possible to replace those who ignore our Constitution. But, it is going to be a long, hard struggle for this country to get back to valuing freedom more than relying on the central gov’t to “take care of us.” I’m not optimistic.

By: chuckie

chuckie — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:48:49 +0000

….neither do i play one on television…..nor have i stayed at a holiday inn express….

…..nevertheless….i live in a house that i designed stick by stick, with the aid of a comprehensive home construction book…i sat at the dining room table in our 900 sq ft home, and magically produced this 3200 sq ft home we now inhabit, with some graph paper and pencils……the walls are where i put them….the windows and doors are where i put them….if the book said use 2x10s for those floor joists, we used 2x12s just in case…..

….after that…..we got some money from the bank, and proceeded to build the dream….i mean…WE built it, we did not pay someone else to do the work….even the two preteen sons helped hammer flooring down….

….after that…….we took our six acres of scrub and multiflora wilderness and made it into a park….most people compare it to a golf course, but we llike it anyway….where the water used to flood thru the hollow, i dug canals and told it to stay where it belonged….a ditch i dug “two shovels wide and two shovels deep” is now a creek four feet wide and three feet deep that holds all the water it needs to hold…..

….we have lived here almost twenty years now…..are you sure you want to tell me that a collection of anonymous strangers should have the right to tell us we MUST sell our home and move…??????…

……..do you really think there is such a thing as a FAIR COMPENSATION for what we would be losing here…???…

…..my heart breaks for Suzette Kelo today……she is not “vindicated,” she has not “won” anything…..she will never get her home back….and now, it was stolen for zilch nada bupkiss ….just the government seeing what it could get away with……

By: rivahmitch

rivahmitch — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:16:46 +0000

The difference is that Suzette Keloand the other cases you mentioned is that OWNED her property. She had paid taxes on it for years and rightly considered it hers.

The Constitution allows the taking of private property by imminent domain for “public purpose”. If you think “public purpose” means that the local taxing body can realize greater revenue by turning it over to another Private Party, you really don’t believe in private property. If yoiu personally wish to be a serf, that’s your privilege. If you inflict serfdom on your neighbors, that makes you an enemy. The Supreme Court decision, of which you are so approving, in essence said that you only own your property until any level of government decides for any reason that you don’t…

Over such issues will blood be spilled and rightly so.

By: Return to Revolution

Return to Revolution — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:51:13 +0000

One perspective that may be helpful is to look at land ownership in terms of mutual consent v. force. Sometimes folks forget that the government is, literally, force. The Kelo case is nothing more than a group of people resorting to guns to take someone’s property when mutual consent failed. Can you really justify your occupation if you have to use government force in order to work? Are you willing to point a gun at Suzette Kelo and force her out of her house yourself? If your answer to that is no, then the Kelo ruling cannot be just. If yes, you don’t belong in a free society.

Yes, the constitution allows for the government to use such force but it is very specific and severely limited. The Kelo case allows anyone to take anyone else’s land for any reason. The misinterpretation in the Kelo case is so gross one has to wonder if it was deliberate.

Also, picking through the constitution looking for justification is akin to the socialized healthcare crowd using the “general welfare” clause as constitutional justification. If you accept that the founders were trying to create a system of maximum individual rights – defined by prohibiting the initiation of force for any reason – then all of this goes out the window. And if the founders were not trying to create such a system, what the hell were they trying to do?

Fighting the government over unjust use of force is only half the battle. More fundamentally, people need to stop tolerating the use of force on their behalf.

By: wayneepalmer

wayneepalmer — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:50:08 +0000

Do you not understand a single thing about what this country is about? Does that whole Constitution thingy offend you?

You have no clue about Freedom, dammit!

That land was hers. She bought it and made her home in it and intended on dying on it and that was her right – profit and the needs of the many be damned.

The land It does not belong to the government. It does not belong to whoever can make more money or provide more jobs and has lawyers.

Shoving people around so that others can profit the province of tyrants. That was what we did to the Native Americans and what Kelo allows to be done to every American. You want us to be China.

We took Native land to get the gold and now you think it is cool to steal everyone’s so you can others get the new gold. You are fighting for the right to be a thief and you want to make theft legal.

Freedom is more important than profit and property rights are a part of Freedom. Without Freedom in the end this country will be the same as every 3rd world despotic Hell where a few have everything and most people live in absolute squalor and the rich and powerful – for the excuse of creating jobs (and losts of money for them) shove them around at will. I’ve been around the 3rd world. I know of what I speak.

Pfizer had other options and so do you. You just want the easy ones that make the most money and to Hell with the Freedom of those who get in your way.

If you are so interested in using land effectively, why don’t you Kelo a park or some public office building?

By: racvt

racvt — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:35:13 +0000

to Tsquare: My brother in law, a practicing architect with SOM (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) decades ago, was charged with determining the ‘feasibility’ of an interstate route through Baltimore.
After interviewing the impacted neighborhood residents (inner city, poor and black), he concluded that tearing up the neighborhood was not in ‘their’ public’s interest. … and caught hell for it.
While you may be free to pick up and move if the price is right, your neighbor may not be so easily bought.
Consider this: Does one become less of a wh*re if she’ll sleep with anyone, provided the price is high enough?

By: wayneinnh

wayneinnh — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:24:12 +0000

It is too bad that the Lost Liberty Hotel never caught on. Seizing Souter's house for a hotel would have been a perfectly legitimate use of the property according to his own decision.

By: bk

bk — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:45:41 +0000

If there is some overriding public benefit involved, then it's one thing. The way Kelo seemed to work out is that if I own a piece of property, and someone else ~~promises~~ claims that they ~~will~~ might at some point in the future pay more in property taxes than I do by converting it to some other private use, then the local government can confiscate my property.

By: DefendUSA

DefendUSA — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:37:10 +0000

You don’t seem to have considered that Kelo’s compensation was nothing in comparison to what she would have had to reinvest for property of like kind. She was standing up for what should have remained her private property.
And where do you get off saying that Kelo drove Pfizer out of business? THAT is ludicrous. If what they “needed” to do was build, why didn’t they? 4 years ago!!
I would be bitter, too. And hopefully, I’d have gotten over it, if the “progress”
that was supposed to happen actually happened. Sadly, they lost a big part of their lives because of power wielded by others.
Good for you that YOU would gladly walk away. I wonder if you’d feel the same after living in a home for 40 years.

By: JoeG

JoeG — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:46:44 +0000

But this should be the legal perspective.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:28:08 +0000

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:12:32 +0000

time for me to go to bed…

Now you will never believe me…

Except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, a person shall not…

Great now that I butchered my point, you will think I have actually no idea what I am talking about.

You may be right. I will leave Redstate tonight in shame

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:09:41 +0000

let me rephrese…

When not in actual service of time or War or public danger;

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:06:22 +0000

come on, these conversations are fun though you must admit. I actually enjoy these conversations because they help me to understand, whether I’m right or wrong, I usually learn something.

I distinctly remember seeing the Amendment V in grade school and remember learning that those things that are spelled out are things the U.S. Government or State can not do unless under the prescription of war-time. Remember the Constitution is to spell out things the Government can not do to its citizens; however, in this case, the founders allowed for special times of war and public danger. Other than that, it appears to me that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the Government can not do those things, unless the Congress declares War. Of course the perverted left can take the public danger for whatever they want it to mean.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:51:13 +0000

until the end of the entire amendment. Read closely, its kind of like the 2nd amendment w/ the comma and not a semicolon. Here’s my point

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Now you will notice the appearance of a semicolon in the sentence. Lets look at it this way…

When in actual service in time of War or public danger, a person shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

When in actual service in time of War or public danger, a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

When in actual service in time of War or public danger, a person’s private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That’s what the 5th Amendment was for, not the perverted meaning that the Supreme’s have contemplated it to mean.

By: mikerazar

mikerazar — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:45:44 +0000

Eminent domain is theft. End of story. If you want to build a factory, pay the market price for the property you need. Who determines market price. Let’s see…
HOW ABOUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?

The fifth amendment guarantees just compensation, but neglects to define that term. Pompous judges like to substitute their own judgment. The fact is that eminent domain has always been used by corrupt politicians to steal from the poor and give to the rich. Don’t fall for the reverse lie either. Robin Hood stole from the rich and the poor and kept the loot.

The difference between Ms. Kelo and the treehuggers is that she was defending HER property from a thief. They are trying to deprive others of the use of their own property. They are the thieves. All the difference in the world!

I agree with one thing you say. Congratulations to Suzette Kelo! I don’t get emotional about most “things” either. But I get very emotional over government violations of the rights of fellow citizens.

By: Tbone

Tbone — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:42:23 +0000

He has a business perspective. In fact, if his thumb wasn’t otherwise employed, he could hold it up and get a better perspective.

By: tsquare

tsquare — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:38:07 +0000

There is one here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

By: David123

David123 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:36:28 +0000

It’s their property. If they don’t want to sell it for what you’re offering, they shouldn’t have to.

Using eminent domain to take someone’s house at a price they’re unwilling to sell it for unless it’s for a true public purpose – and even then it should only be a last resort.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:32:18 +0000

This amendment says nothing to me about eminent domain, it was once taught that only during wartime can a reasonable argument be made for the seizure of private property with just compensation.

If this is how this was interpreted, then the Supreme Court has 5 dumba$$es.