Third Party & Independents Archives

My poor David R. Remer.

The Democrats are trying to rally their Base. Remember Iraq? Democrats screwed Iraq up. This led to lackluster voting among the Faithful. The Supreme Court is a great chance to show the American Public that Democrats will fight instead of bend over. In the end, it is the Fanatic who shows up to vote. The Gays and Homophobia did it for Republicans. Pro-Choice and Affirmative Action might do it for Democrats.

So I say unto you, David!!! Drop the middle-road!!! Today is not the time for moderation!!! Today we FIGHT!!! We are at WAR!!!

TO ARMS!!! TO ARMS!!!

Posted by: Aldous at July 6, 2005 05:01 AM

David,

I tend to agree with most of your article, I think Dem.’s will snatch defete from the jaws of victory. (again)
I think alot of the problem is that Dem.’s controled congress for so many years(untill the last decade)that the old school Democrats like Kennedy, Schumer,even Kerry, just can’t change.

What worked 25-30 yrs ago wont work now.
The issues have changed, their base has changed, and the media and internet allow much more information to the voters.

I get chastized every time I offer advice to the left, so I wont bother.
There are some simple, painless things they could do, but time is running out.

Without sweeping changes in leadership the party is doomed IMO.

Posted by: Beagle at July 6, 2005 08:26 AM

David -

This Supreme Court battle is poison for both parties. Both parties contain a significant base of hardcore partisans who vote for president with the Supreme Court very much in mind. That includes myself. Not only are abortion and other “culture of life” issues decided at that level, but we increasingly see the liberal majority eroding other constitutional freedoms, most notably in the Kelo v. New London and home-grown marijuana decisions.

The Court is too important for serious partisans to give up easily. However, confirmation battles never help anyone. A brutal fight will make both parties look extreme and petty, because they inevitably devolve into Borking.

Who “wins” in this battle may become apparent in the future, when the new justice’s positions become clear. For the 2006 and 2008 elections, though, I think there are only going to be losers.

Posted by: Chops at July 6, 2005 09:55 AM

Chops,

I can agree somewhat, blocking everything was sure poison for Tom Dashell.

I had thought that Harry Reid would lead the party back to more moderate positions that reflect the former base of the party, I was wrong.

I don’t know who or what is pushing him now, but he’s become rabid lately.
I honestly feel sorry for the guy, he’s a changed man and under stress IMO.

Posted by: Beagle at July 6, 2005 10:17 AM

David, I agree… IMO the Dems anger and resentment has been channeled directly at one person (Guess who that would be!) for so long that it has created tunnel vision of sorts. Lately they seem to be concerned only with disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. I would be very suprised if they took the opportunity you speak of to show the voting public that they are not just in this to play “Devil’s advocate” for everything that the current administration says or does.

Being planted somewhere between Libertarian and Conservative (depending on the issue) myself I actually see this as a bad thing short term but could possibly lead to a good thing long term.

While there is still mainly a 2 party system it works best to keep each party “in the game”. When one falls off the pace it leads to the other party taking a more one sided “we will do what we want” approach.

Short term, this is bad for those of us who have a tendency to be somewhere in the middle on the most issues. I want the extreme right in power only slightly more than I want the extreme left in power. Either way it is not where I would like the country to be.

Long term however, the more that both main parties pander to their most extreme idologies the better the chance that a 3rd party that is somewhere in the middle will actually have a chance to break out and become a real player on a national level. Since that is really much closer to what I believe, I see this as a possible good thing for our country.

I guess we shall see how the story unfolds!

Posted by: Brad at July 6, 2005 12:16 PM

David-
This is a lifetime appointment. If Bush picks a heinous candidate, we need to oppose that candidate by any means necessary. We just need to be eloquent in telling voters why.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2005 12:17 PM

My best guess:

Bush vets his choices with Leahy and the Dems on Judiciary. He’ll pick one from their “approved” list, thereby co-opting a filibuster.

Reason #1: He plans on replacing Rehnquist with a right-wing ideologue & he’s a lot less likely to get him or her approved if he forces a zealot through the Senate now.

Reason #2: Rehnquist is likely to retire next year (an election year) & the Reps running for Congress can make some serious political hay against the “obstructionist” Dems filibustering Bush’s choice for Chief Justice.

Reason #3: Replacing a swing voting Associate with a right wing fanatic would be nice, but replacing a hard right Chief Justice with another one is necessary. Justices often suprise their appointers (see Lincoln & Chase), and the right can’t afford to be surprised by a centrist Chief Justice. In short, its worth going to the mattresses on this one.

I’m sure that there are other good reasons, but these should suffice.

Don’t get me wrong. We’re not going to get a William Douglas or a Louis Brandeis, but we will get somebody who will look a lot more like a Warren Burger than the Roger Taney we’re going to get when Rehnquist goes.

In short, chew on this one:

The Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Mr. Robert Bork.

Should be quite a show.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 6, 2005 12:46 PM

It is doubtful that the practical adequacy of the person Bush’s nominates will be discernable to an unengaged public in coming weeks. I seriously doubt that Bush will nominate a judge who rules on social/cultural beliefs—which would make him or her heinous—BUT one whose legal beliefs will likely cause them to vote as though they were culturally opposed to abortion, gay marriage, etc. The activists on both sides will draw the conclusions based on the philosophy and—unless I am mistaken—will present that to the public via advertisements and presentations to the media. That’s how the public will form its opinions and judge candidates as “extremist”, “heinous”, or what have you.

The fact that this kind of intense coverage and polarization of the nomination process is rather unprecedented I think makes it hard to predict how the public will react. Nonetheless, I’ve seen polls that suggest the Democrats have some (and only some) leeway to practice obstructionism. If the candidate’s barely acceptable—I suppose that means it would be hard to say for sure that he or she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or something of the sort—the Democrats then lose that leeway. If the candidate’s someone like Gonzales, perhaps that’s the best they’ll be able to do.

Posted by: Xan at July 6, 2005 12:55 PM

PS.

I presume that all of those who were so upset by the Kelo decision support Taney’s decision in Dred Scott.

Once Taney determined that Scott was slave property and not a citizen, his decision sounds a lot like the dissent in Kelo:

“And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of this kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.”

I’m surprised O’Connor didn’t quote Dred Scott in her dissent.

Unless she (and Taney) have a different copy of the Consitution from mine, the Fifth Amendment guarantees property three protections: due process, public use and just compensation. Since the first and the last weren’t issues in Kelo, the case hinged on the definition of public use. The Court simply said that the determination of “public use” should be a legislative, not judicial, decision.

Doesn’t it make sense to anyone else but me (and a majority of the Court) that the representatives of the people are best qualified to determine public use? Talk about your judicial restraint! If the burghers of New London think that the public use of private property is enhanced by a private developer, it is within their power to exercise eminent domain.

After all, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said,

“It has given me great pleasure to sustain the Constitutionality of laws I believe to be as bad as possible, because I thereby helped to mark the difference between what I would forbid and what the Constitution permits.”

Or, more succinctly, stupidity is not unconstitutional.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 6, 2005 01:29 PM

Xan,

I expect Bush to nominate someone like Edmond Ludwig( not sure thats the correct name?), or even Janis Rogers Brown.
Whoever it is will be as far from Souter as possible.
Anyone expecting wishy-washy, or moderate will be dissapointed. IMHO

Posted by: Beagle at July 6, 2005 01:52 PM

Chuck,

To make the statements about the Takings Clause that you have made require completely ignoring everything that was written by the founding fathers, especially Lee and Madison, and failing to understand the role of the constitution, protecting rights and limiting possible abuses of the government.

Congratulations on such a far reaching stretch without breaking your back!

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2005 02:17 PM

Chuck, I have to agree with Rhinehold on this one. The Constitution accomplishes a number of tasks, not the least of which is protection of the citizen from the onerous use of and overwhelming power of government. The Government has no business favoring one private law abiding interest over another - the government is responsible for representing the interests and welfare of all of its citizens.

Eminent domain as a concept, is by definition preferential in its treatment of some private interests over possibly others. And it can be justified only by the defense of accomplishing an essential greater good for the public at large when where minority interests would be sacrificed.

Raising tax revenues, in and of itself does not meet this standard because raising tax revenues is not necessarily essential. And certainly, shopping malls, and Wal-Mart super-centers, are not inherently essential. If the circumstance arises where the only 2 Mom and Pop general stores in town close down, then permitting a shopping mall or Wal-Mart through eminent domain may be justified. But that will rarely, if ever be the case in America.

The Kelo decision too, opens the door for widespread kickbacks and bribery to take place in local governments to influence exercise of emminent domain where unwilling potential sellers refuse the offers made. As far as I am concerned, the net effect of the Kelo decision is to simply open the door wider to corruption of government. Not a month goes by that there aren’t at least one headline of government corruption. It is going to increase thanks to this ruling.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2005 02:42 PM

Beagle

I’m not quite sure what to expect. The administration hasn’t been saying much about it, other than taking preliminary steps to selecting someone. This is what stands out to me, if I were to argue he plans to nominate a legal moderate:

• The administration has been open to meetings with party leaders on both sides to discussing a potential nominee.
• President Bush repeated in Denmark to day that he would not apply a “litmus test” of positions on abortion or gay marriage to his potential selections.
• Despite the fact that conservative activists have actively opposed Gonzales, President Bush has been earnestly defending him as a friend and public servant.
• Harry Reid, additionally, has said Gonzales is “qualified”, but that he won’t have an easy ride through the Senate. Sounds to me like tepid support on which the President could build.

This could all be a bunch of meaningless political posturing, or it could mean he’s aiming to avoid a nasty fight. The Democrats have said they’re willing to filibuster, but that could be a bluff to get the President on the defensive. I think both sides at least claim to have the upper hand, without being completely sure (and with good reason) whether they actually do or not.

I guess all I’m saying is that the nomination really is up in the air. Let’s hope he announces someone soon… then the real (i.e. dirty) debate begins.

I would post a couple stories to support this, but Watchblog doesn’t seem to like the URLs. They shouldn’t be hard to find; I found mine on My Yahoo under AP: Politics.

Chuck

I guess the real question is, Does the “public use” clause include selling land to commercial entities for tax revenue? Invoking Dred Scott is irrelevant, even if the quote seems to fit, because it dealt with the idea of slaves as property. That idea became moot with the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. The idea of the treatment of property itself as presented in Dred Scott—neglecting the baggage on slaves as property—might have merit, but I’d have to read through it first. Regardless, bringing it up in this context is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy on its bad reputation.

Regardless, the Kelo decision stands, and now its up to the voters to pressure the states to pass legislation against emminent domain, if they so desire. For those opposed to it, though, the idea of “public use” having such a broad meaning is questionable both in terms of intent and semantics.

Posted by: Xan at July 6, 2005 02:50 PM

I finally figured out what the title of this article reminded me of! It was a line spoken by William Powell in the film “Life With Father.”
Why did God make fools and Democrats?

Seriously, good article David.

I read this morning that President Bush is planning to talk to senators from both parties before he makes his decision. Maybe that will give him some idea of what kind of judge the Democrats consider obstructable. Unfortunately, from what some of the senators are saying, it sounds like they might be ready to block anybody he nominates.

I hope he taps someone completely unexpected and little-known. This might make it a bit more difficult for the Democrats to sling mud at him/her.

Chuck,

Doesn’t it make sense to anyone else but me (and a majority of the Court) that the representatives of the people are best qualified to determine public use?

No. I am much more qualified to determine the use of my own property than anyone at any level of government. Why? Because I own it and they don’t. Simple as that. In fact, I’m the only one qualified to make that decision, unless there is some sort of zoning law already in place when I buy the property.
The government should not have the right to force me to give or sell them the property that I’ve worked for.
Eminent domain is supposed to be used minimally for roads, etc. It’s not a license for the government to take the property that I’ve earned and sell it to private businesses.

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 6, 2005 03:14 PM

Stephen:
“This is a lifetime appointment. If Bush picks a heinous candidate, we need to oppose that candidate by any means necessary.”

I agree.
The fact that SC appointments are lifetime ones makes this replacement important to progressives, because whoever fills O’Connors seat could dramatically shift the court to the right.

Although in the short term it may have no effect on legal abortions because currently that issue is supported by six of the current justices (although when Renquist leaves, that issue is going to be major), in the long term, this place on the bench could have a huge effect on many other important issues, such as:
Civil liberties, Individual rights, Environmental Protection, Consumer Protections, Worker’s Rights, Affirmative Action and Women’s Rights.
All things that could affect every aspect of life in America.

That being the case, I definitely think it’s worth demanding that the Senate conduct a very broad and in depth inquiry, so we can get a deliberative jurist who is actually capable of making decisions that will protect all Americans, rather than one who is going to automatically side with special or corporate interests at every turn.

“We just need to be eloquent in telling voters why.”

Yes. And people on the Left, please contact your senators on this issue!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 6, 2005 04:24 PM

Stephen said: “This is a lifetime appointment. If Bush picks a heinous candidate, we need to oppose that candidate by any means necessary. We just need to be eloquent in telling voters why.”

The Big question is what constitutes “heinous” to Democratic leadership and Senators? Another question is, will what the D. Party leadership perceive as heinous, also be perceived by the public at large as heinous? Some political accumen is going to be required here, and frankly, I have my doubts the D. Party has what it takes to accurately and objectively assess this situation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2005 04:54 PM

David,

I fear that those on the far left will deem anyone to the right of Ruth Bater Ginsburg as heious and call for a filibuster.

Have you seen Harry Reid on TV lately?
Someone is putting serious pressure on him, and it shows.

Posted by: Beagle at July 6, 2005 05:57 PM

Reinhold & David

Care to point out the phrase “essential greater good” to me in the Fifth Amendment? I looked for it, but I couldn’t find it.

Your arbitrary defination of ethical eminent domain is no better or worse than mine or Kelo’s or the founding fathers’ or the Supreme Court’s, for that matter. The point is that your definition of ethical public use (or mine or Kelo’s or the founders’ or the Court’s) is immaterial to the constitutionality of the condemnation. The Fifth Amendment says “public use”. Period.

It’s up to the local, state or federal legislature to determine, on a case by case basis, when the greater good of the city, state or nation is served by the exercise of eminent domain.

You may or may not agree with their definition, but, notwithstanding certain broad parameters (presumably including governmental corruption), the Constitution and legal precedent give them the ultimate authority to define it.

Xan:

It wasn’t a rhetorical ploy.

If you think that a person has a right to use or possess private property that supercedes right of the community to control or prohibit it in order to enhance the general welfare, as Taney did, you’re hard pressed to come to a different conclusion in Dred Scott than he did.

And if you do, try driving past a schoolyard at 100 miles per hour. You can use Taney’s quote when the cops pull you over.

Seriously, though, suggest you read the decision. (Skip the stuff about citizenship at the beginning - the part about property is toward the end)

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 6, 2005 06:16 PM

Chuck said: “The Fifth Amendment says “public use”. Period.”

By your argument Chuck, eminent domain may be used to confiscate all private property in America and distribute equitably to all tax payers under a socialist redistribution.

No! Chuck, the words “public use” have meaning beyond those two words, obviously. And since the Constitution was set out to “promote the general welfare” or words to that effect, the intent of public use is to provide the greatest good with least harm to individuals which is the ethic laid out in the Preamble.

You seem to look at individual words in the Constitution for limits of meaning without realizing that the meaning of the US Constitution cannot be appreciated, as S.C. Justices are expected to do, without taking the whole of the document and all its prescriptions and goals together. Afterall, it was a document to define a nation as well as a government. It was not a simple minded list of do’s and don’ts. It was a road map to specific goals stated therein, and like all maps, there are a number of ways one can go to get from point A to B.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2005 06:41 PM

Beagle, I am sure you are right about some on the far left. But, the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, has its many factions spanning a spectrum from left or right center to far left or right. The question is whether the D. Party has sufficient representatives of more moderate middle Americans to see the benefit of appealing to their sensibilities on this issue.

At least that is my question. Probably not THE question.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2005 06:45 PM

David,

2 of the Dem’s from the gaggle of 14, said today they would vote for the nuke option if there is a filibuster!

Filibuster is off the table now. It seems there are some moderate Dems left in the Senate.

Posted by: Beagle at July 6, 2005 08:10 PM

David,

Well, that’s a first - a strict constructionalist accused of socialism.

No, government cannot confiscate all private property (with just compensation); it can confiscate any private property.

Try looking at it this way: without government private property wouldn’t exist, except in its most elemental form. We’d live in a Hobbesian anarchy where the strong or duplicitous could take from the weak or virtuous. Because government permits and protects the acquisition of private property for the the greater good of society, it must have the inherent ability to appropriate that property when it deems that the private possession or use of it contravenes the general welfare.

That’s why Jefferson changed Locke’s three inalienable rights in his Two Treatises on Government - life, liberty and property - to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. You don’t have an inalienable right to property; you have an inalienable right to acquire it.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 6, 2005 09:13 PM

No matter how you cut, Chuck, the Kelo decision grants government authorities the right to take from some private citizens to give to other private citizens if it chooses, and NO! I don’t believe Jefferson or Washington would have given the government the right to force the sale Mt. Vernon or Monticello in order to provide that property to another higher bidding private party for whatever purpose. No! Your interpretation simply does not fit with the founder’s intent which was to oppose the King’s right to abscond private property or enter private premises without permission.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2005 09:38 PM

Brad, except for wishing only slightly more for the extreme left than the extreme right, I entirely agree and respect your perspective in your comments. Thank you for your comments.

Beagle and Chops, thank you for your comments as well. It still gives me much hope to see how folks with left and right leanings such as us are able to find so much common ground and perspective on American politics. Reasonable, mature, responsible, objective, and critically analytical Americans do exist. WB is living proof of that. Thank you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 7, 2005 01:13 AM

Chuck, your logic fails me. You said: “No, government cannot confiscate all private property (with just compensation); it can confiscate any private property.”

If government CAN confiscate ANY private property, BY DEFINITION, it CAN confiscate ALL private property. If what you say is true, the door is open to socialist confiscation of private property by the state. The logic is inescapable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 7, 2005 01:34 AM

David,

In case you check back in, I’ll try it one more time.

In its most elemental form, the people, and by extension their elected representatives, are the sovereigns of the state. As such, they possess the power to change the laws, including the power to amend or rescind the Constitution. Thus, in theory, you’re right. We/they have the power to adopt a socialistic or communistic society theoretically. In short, we have the power to confiscate or regulate ALL property.

Yet, our Constitution precludes our government from confiscating ALL personal property because the Fifth Amendment places three preconditions upon doing so:

The first is just compensation. Universal confiscation would necessitate universal compensation. This would entail universal liquidation, which would be the ultimate zero-sum economy. In order to finance these transation, the government would be compelled to place a 100% ownership tax on all private property, which it would then return to each taxpayer and which would put everyone back where they started. Even if this is theoretically possible, which I doubt, it hardly seems worth the effort.

Second is due process. Each and every transaction would have to withstand the rigors of legislation and, if contested, individual litigation.

Third is public use. Each and every piece of personal property could only be confiscated if and only if it can or will be used by the public. (This does not necessarily mean that the property must be owned by or accessible to the public exclusively. Although this is the typical occurance, the Supreme Court in Kelo decided that neither precondition is mandatory.) As Stevens stated in his decision explictly, however, using eminent domain to transfer the ownership of private property without some reasonable coorelation to public use is prohibited by the Constitution.

Thus, because each of these preconditions preclude some form of governmental confiscation, the government could not confiscate ALL (and I would contend most) personal property constitutionally.

Nevertheless, it can confiscate ANY personal property if it meets all three of these preconditions.

Think of it this way: you don’t “own” your property unilaterally, you own a perpetual lease from its original owner, the government, for your personal use of it. This principle is inherent in every post-feudal capitalistic society. (In real estate, we call these perpetual leases “deeds”, and they are issued by the original owner of the property directly.) We don’t expend capital to purchase the property itself, we purchase the ability to use it privately.

Nevertheless, each of these perpetual leases comes with certain covenants, some more restrictive than others, some explict, some implict, and all of them subject to unilateral governmental revision. (For example, the “lease” on your real estate might be encumbered with a restictive convenant known as a “zoning regulation”.) Regardless, each and every piece of personal property - all of these billions and billions of perpetual leases - contain one common covenant: any of them may be rescinded by the government if it believes that doing so will enhance the general welfare.

This is the quid pro quo of democratic capitalism. Government facilitates the private “ownership” of property if neither its possession nor its use contravenes the general welfare of society.

Thus government may restrict your use of your automobile, even though you “own” it, by enacting legislation that limits the speed at which you can drive it. It may confiscate it without compensation (forfeiture) if you are duly convicted of using it to commit a crime. And it may conficate arbitrarily it if the general welfare requires it.

Think of Gene Hackman’s character, Popeye Doyle, in The French Connection when he commandeers a car from a private citizen to chase an elevated train. He holds up his badge (due process) and uses the private property to enhance the general welfare (chasing the murderer). Because I assume that the city would replace the car (fair compensation) after he crashes it or that a court would compel it to do so if it refused, I would call this a classic example of eminent domain. He couldn’t (or wouldn’t) confiscate EVERY car to chase the bad guy, but he could choose ANY car to do so.

In Kelo, the citizen sued the city to try to prevent Doyle from confiscating the car. The majority of the Court said that if Doyle had driven it home and parked it in his driveway or if the city didn’t offer just compensation, the citizen would have a case. As it pertained to public use, however, the Court simply gave Doyle the benefit of the doubt. If he said that the general welfare required the confiscation of that particular car at that particular time and it passed the test of plausibility, the Court wasn’t going to second guess him.

So I don’t think that Washington or Jefferson would have given up their ancestral homes gladly, but I do think that they were sufficiently democratic to have deferred to the government they created if it compelled them to do so. They realized that a man’s home may be his castle, but his democratic government is the king.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 7, 2005 05:07 PM

Damn fools? Hell, I could have told you that.

Posted by: Zeek at July 7, 2005 07:23 PM

Thanks Zeek for that erudite perspective. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2005 03:47 AM

Chuck said: “As Stevens stated in his decision explictly, however, using eminent domain to transfer the ownership of private property without some reasonable coorelation to public use is prohibited by the Constitution.”

If you could provide a link to what Stevens stated explicitly, I would appreciate looking at the context and exact wording. What is a reasonable correlation, and what constitutes public use? Wal-Mart or a Gas Station? Did Stevens write the majority opinion on the Kelo case?

We might as well get the facts out here before continuing the debate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2005 04:10 AM

David,

Here’s the link to the Kelo decision. Stevens wrote the decision & Kennedy wrote an interesting concurance.

The following is my Reader’s Digest version:

First Stevens says what the case ISN’T about:

“Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future ‘use by the public’ is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.”

Section III, Para 1

Then he says what the case IS about:

“The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a ‘public purpose.’ Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.”

Section III Para 4

Finally, he rejects Kelo’s in terrorem agrument of incipient socialism:

“It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise.”

Section IV, Para 4

This in terrorem arguement formed the ideological foundation upon which O’Connor based her dissent, however:

“Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded — i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public — in the process.”

Para 2, Emphasis added

Just like the majority of those who opposed this decision, she confuses “ANY” private property with “ALL” private property.

Hope you see my point & I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 8, 2005 02:36 PM

Think of it this way: you don’t “own” your property unilaterally, you own a perpetual lease from its original owner, the government, for your personal use of it. This principle is inherent in every post-feudal capitalistic society. (In real estate, we call these perpetual leases “deeds”, and they are issued by the original owner of the property directly.) We don’t expend capital to purchase the property itself, we purchase the ability to use it privately. - Chuck Hanrahan

Chuck, I may be wrong in this, the law of real property may be different in the US to what applies both in Ireland and Great Britain, tho I suspect the concept of leasehold is the very same. If I am correct, then you are confusing leasehold with freehold. Leasehold land is subject to the terms of the lease. By contrast, Freehold land, having no restrictions, in owned by the freeholder in perpetuity. I hope this clarifies.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 8, 2005 06:51 PM

David,the problem with your story is that you completly forget what the democrats are fighting for here.If the entire country wanted to put back prayer in school,illegalize abortion(which I am actually against),meld the separation of church and state and require everyone to go to a Christian church,throw out evolution,etc.,etc.,than a radically far right judge would be just fine.If you feel those are ok for America,then I can see you for what you would then be,a republican.Just less than half of America voted for Kerry,and what the dems are doing in congress are fighting for that last bit of freedom that is carefully being chipped away by the Bush administration.And I find it hard to believe an extremist judge would care one tidly about the environment because they never do.

We’re over there in Iraq trying to set up a democratic society in a theocracy.It’s time to do something before our country itself turns into a theocracy.Because that’s exactly what’s going on up in there.

As far as I’m concerned,just to throw this in,George W. Bush is no Christian.They think he is,and he’s playing to them.A lot of the people who are following him and hanging on his every word,are radicals,and would love an extreme right judge.They are saying there never was a separation of church and state.If we let these people run the country,they are going to throw the entire constitution out the window,and we’ll get set back to the 17th century with a puritan society,with people finding and persecuting witches.I’m sorry if that sounds extreme,but that’s how i see them.

Posted by: whitebear3 at July 10, 2005 05:29 AM

The hope for a puritan society is long past for most Christians. The Republican Party certainly doesn’t fight for one. You have to be more far right than most Republicans to want that. If such a third-party exists, then I don’t know about it. Nor would I want to be part of it, as I belong to a religion that is falsely considered to be a cult by many mainstream Christians and my own Freedom of Religion would be flushed down the toilet.

As I see the Democrats are fighting for the right to usurp power from the President, mainly because they don’t like the President. Choosing the SC Justice is supposed to be the President’s job. That’s how the Constitution is set up. Democrats are usurping that right by putting a halt to any selection. They don’t like Bush so they won’t let him do his job. To me, they look like spoiled children throwwing a fit because they lost their prize. Though, in all fairness, I suspect the Republicans would be too, were they in the Democrats positions.

Democrats want a Justice that’s going to tote their party line. But they’re not going to get that, because they are not in charge and do not represent the majority of the population. Just a smidgen less than the majority still gives the Republicans the majority.

I personally hope the SC Justice that Bush chooses and is passed through the Senate will keep the Democrats from taking away our Freedom of Religion bit by bit and replacing it with a Freedom FROM Religion.

I’m not suggesting we put the Bible back in the schools, exclusively, but if we don’t we better get the Koran and the Gita out of the public schools. You can’t call one teaching religion while calling the other teaching culture. That’s called prejudice and the Democrats seem to hold a great and abiding prejudice against Judeo-Christian religions. The judge Bush selects, the Judge that gets to sit in O’Connor chair HAS to be willing and able to stand up to any party that wants to take away our inalienable rights and that, as I see it, is exactly what the Dems don’t want. Seeing as they’ve been working so hard on giving more rights to some than others and taking away rights from some, all in the name of diversity. Alas, that used to be such a good, kind, hope-filled word.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2005 07:40 PM

Aldous,

Do you REALLY want a civil war? Is that what you’re asking for here? I’ve heard the call to arms far too often from both sides of the fence to take it lightly. I must honestly say that talk like that makes me very afraid for our nation. This wouldn’t be some sort of North vs. South deal. Left versus Right is everywhere. There would be no havens; it would be neighbor vs. neighbor all over the country, not just across some imaginary line. America would be no more and the terrorists would be laughing their ***es off. Please don’t go there.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2005 07:46 PM

We are headed for:
(1) civil war, or
(2) federal government reform

Which do you think is more likely?

Also, there must be something terribly wrong with our legal system, if our legal system indicts and incarcerates so many people, that it requires the president to step in and pardon so many people unjustly accused.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 10:47 PM

Stephanie said: “Choosing the SC Justice is supposed to be the President’s job.”

Not quite. Choosing a nominee is the President’s job. Whether that nominee becomes a Justice depends upon the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constituion clearly intends that the choice of a S.C. justice be a choice reflected both by the President and the people’s elected representatives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2005 12:47 AM

Stephanie, you should, I believe, fear for the nation’s future. But, not until and if, there is a major economic decline. The reason I say that is because the rise of radicalism in this country over the last 10 years. KKK is making a comeback. The Religious Right has never been stronger. The pro and con groups are too numerous to list here. But, the point is, middle America is not vulnerable to radicalism so long as their quality of life is not seriously impacted over a short period of time.

However, if a serious economic decline occurs, and that potential is growing, though still only a small risk in the short term, then middle America will become vulnerable to radical rhetoric of many different kinds in their desperation to seek a road back the quality of life known before observably quick onset of an economic decline.

Radicalism will find enrollments and support that could go far beyond their current dreams. And that could lead to repeated bouts of anarchy and civil unrest, and social disobedience, and even rapid increases in criminal attacks upon persons and property in the name of ideologies. We saw this happen in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

The nation was not nearly as divided on anywhere near as many different issues then, as we are today. That portends a civil conflict that could be far worse than the 60-70’s, and far more widespread.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2005 12:58 AM

Stephanie I appreciate your comments,because it is actually good for us to hear the other side and that’s why I like this blog.You hear all day from people in your family,friends,and most co-workers(My state went blue in 04)the same views as you have,and then you hear what the other side is saying,and I feel that is stimulating,especially if you are talking to intelligent people.Some blogs are pure mud-slinging and profanity.

I never thought of that before,that the right feels THEIR freedom to have religion is being threatened.But I can assure you that isn’t what most people on the left are about.I feel it’s fine if someone wants to keep their religion,especially when there is so much violence and terrorism going on.I actually believe in Jesus myself,although I don’t go to church,and I feel if someone wants to be a bhudist,or even a muslim,they should have that right.Being part native american,I also have beliefs that we are all connected to nature.

Democrats don’t dislike Bush for nothing.They have valid reasons.I feel we did need to take down Saddam,and eventually Kim Jong Il.I just wish Bush would have gotten more back-up before going in there so it wouldn’t be such a hard fight.

If you want to know why I,personally, dislike Bush,here’s an example:I’m a Washington state resident,and we are proud to say it is one of the most beautiful ares in the US,and possibly the world.There are many pristine areas we are trying to preserve.Now enter the Bush administration.Since he became president he has persisted in fighting for extreme logging in areas that haven’t been touched for generations.If you build roads into these forests,their beauty and prime wildlife habitat will slowly decline,and not just from logging,but just having a road thru there will trigger it.

Also there is strong debate going on about taking out I think 4 dams on the lower snake river.These dams are outdated and have proven to be unessessary.The Columbia and Snake river are slowly being depleted of Salmon,and not only will the salmon be impacted,but also the fisheries.They want to take out the dams so the salmon can get to the areas they used to spawn.A little science.If we make it too easy for the salmon to get up a fish ladder,they will eventually become weaker.

See it is all connected.I wish Bush would come over here and look at this beautiful state and think again before signing it all out to money.I feel that’s his first priority,how much money he can make.He drastically cut back funding to our state to help re-establish the salmon.And that’s why I dislike Bush.

2 questions:1.Where in our schools are they teaching the Quran?
2.How are the democrats taking away people’s rights?

The reason Democrats don’t want the judge Bush picks is because it’s going to be an extreme right judge.And judging by his past actions,they are ready for anything.

Posted by: whitebear3 at July 12, 2005 06:16 AM