Souter's home to be taken?

[tracysaboe]

BTW, I am against the taking of souter's home.  But, not because I do or do not forgive him.

I am against the taking because I will not allow souter to corrupt my veiw that taking private property for "public good" is wrong.  I will not buy into his veiw.

We should be working to TAKE SOUTER'S JOB - NOT HIS HOME.

I would love to see souter sell his home and go back to Washington D.C. (were he - evidently - has grown quite too comfortable.)  He is definatly not a "Live Free" type anymore (if he ever realy was.)

souter has brought great shame to our Great State, and I would love it if he never returned again.

Stop Eminent Domain!  Stop clements!
KEEP NEW HAMPSHIRE FREE!
Impeach souter Now!

PS I know that impeachment is just as unlikely as taking souters home, but what is the principled aproach?  When neither of these things happens, maybe we should just ostacize him.

Stop the Madness!
KEEP NEW HAMPSHIRE FREE!
Stop Eminent Domain In NH!

You should send that as a letter to the editor.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

Even if that means that helping Souter, who is partly responsible for this decision, may cause suffering to millions?

JM

That's a HUGE stretch. The Supreme Court simply isn't that powerfull

Tracy

[YeahItsMeJP]

Kelo vs New London?

[tracysaboe]

Roe Vs. Wade was different. The Fed actually FORCEd States to legalize abortion.

In Kelo, the Town was already being the agressor. And the supreme court isn't FORCEING towns to steal the property of their constituents.

And it's not even over down in Kelo yet. The Connecticut State Legislature is already passing legislation to stop emminent domain untill it can sort out all the current new and conflicting statues. The same way several other states alreayd have eminent domain illegal that the Supreme Court decisions hasn't affected them in the least.

The Town of Wear and the State of NH currently doesn't have Emminent Domain abuse being done for private parties so it really doesn't need to affect stuff there -- especially if we can pass some laws making it illegal for the government to so such things.

Do you honestly think that because of this decision local towns and states are going to start just grabbing anything they can get their hands on? Especially with the newly invigorated public pressures against them because they've woken up and stopped depending on the Fed to protect them?

I think it's absurd. This "Souter" think is based on a want for Revenge and panic. And I really don't think either are warranted.

Tracy

[YeahItsMeJP]

The legislation proposed in CT failed. Democrats killed it according to a friend of mine in CT.

JP

[mikefam]

Do you honestly think that because of this decision local towns and states are going to start just grabbing anything they can get their hands on? Especially with the newly invigorated public pressures against them because they've woken up and stopped depending on the Fed to protect them?

Grab a copy of American Free Press dated 7 /14/05? it seems to already be starting? Freeport TX is moving to condem to make way for a private marina,Lake Zuric IL. is moving to steal the properties of 5 citizens,Boston City Counsil asked the Mayor to seize waterfront properties from unwilling sellers to make way for that convention center they been looking to have there for more than 5 years and Arnold MO. plans to raze 30 homes 15 small businesses including a VFW to make way for a Lowes with strip mall.

? yes I do believe there is another "land grab" about to begin? "just desserts" are in order at the very least as a monument for future generations

[tracysaboe]

The legislation proposed in CT failed. Democrats killed it according to a friend of mine in CT.

JP

[tracysaboe]

I have as much right to an oppinion as you do. You don't know anything about me. You don't know how much money I've already donated to various liberty organizations in NH. You also don't know how much I've helped Kat out with spreading her posts to other forums. I am doing stuff. Wish I could do more.

Tracy

[Kat Kanning]

The homesteads of the Kelo Five should be placed on the National Historic Register (let them have the tax credits) least future generations forget 6/23/05 Kelo decision.

This was one of the things they attempted to do to save their property.

[Kat Kanning]

 Brutus and the Court

June 30, 2005     
The U.S. Supreme Court has lately reminded us, in its decisions about government seizures of private property and about displays of the Ten Commandments, that it wields enormous powers that (1) are not found in the Today's column is "Brutus and the Court" -- Read Joe's columns the day he writes them.U.S. Constitution, and (2) may be abused with impunity. It?s high time we reopened the old controversy about judicial review.

Many controversies end prematurely not because one side is necessarily right, but because it wins elections, or a war, or just manages to get its view established as conventional wisdom. Eventually, people just stop debating very debatable things, and judicial review is one of these.

The argument over secession ended when the North won the Civil War; the argument over the New Deal ended because its programs were too popular to resist; Pearl Harbor suddenly put a stop to the debate over whether the United States should get involved in World War II. Yet the losers in these issues had strong points that were never adequately answered.

In the same way, mere custom has settled the debate over judicial review. Nearly all Americans have long taken for granted that the U.S. Supreme Court has a virtual veto over all legislation, Federal, state, and local. The Court has been claiming and exercising this power for nearly two centuries, and few Americans see anything questionable about it.

This means that one branch of government, unelected, unaccountable to the people, and appointed for life, may, at its whim, effectively change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The president can veto any act of Congress, and Congress may override his veto; but neither of the other branches has a similar control over the Court?s rulings, however wrong or even downright batty they may be.

The concept of ?checks and balances,? parroted in civics classes, doesn?t apply to the Supreme Court. The justices are appointed for life ?during good behavior,? and once appointed they are out of control. Furthermore, most of the laws they strike down are state laws, not Federal ones, and the state legislatures have no defense against them. So much for ?checks and balances.?

[Breaker quote for Brutus and the Court: Forgotten prophecies, now fulfilled]The Court is often accused of ?legislating from the bench?; but the power to edit the Constitution itself is far, far beyond any legislative power. In order to correct the Court?s mistakes, under the current system, it?s necessary to undertake the huge effort of adding amendments to the Constitution (or hoping that as the current justices die or retire, they may be succeeded by others who will reverse their decisions ? slim chance of that!).

The power to strike down laws isn?t mentioned, or even hinted at, in the Constitution. The Court?s few powers are set forth in a couple of paragraphs. Judicial review isn?t among them.

So where did this sweeping power come from? In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, after assuring readers that the Supreme Court would be the ?weakest? and ?least dangerous? of the three branches, argued that it must necessarily have the power to nullify acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. This view has prevailed, but Hamilton didn?t face the problems that might arise if such a power were abused.

Others did, though. The pseudonymous ?Brutus,? arguing against ratification of the Constitution, saw the danger of the judiciary very precisely and presciently: the justices? power would be ?altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.?

Brutus further warned that the Federal judiciary might overpower state courts and legislatures. And he saw nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from expanding its own power.

All Brutus?s dire prophecies have been fulfilled. Yet his arguments have never been refuted. Today we are paying the price for ignoring them.

The Court is out of control, and the only solution conservatives can think of is to appoint more conservatives, who will use their power with restraint. But that power itself is the problem. Giving it to ?better? justices won?t solve it.

What will? Only, perhaps, a serious threat of impeachment would make the Court think twice before abusing its power. But this raises further problems, which I?ll address in a future column.

Joseph Sobran

[GT]

Weare right on rights:
Town?s most famous resident is not

IN SELECTING a Weare resident for the U.S. Supreme Court, the first President Bush picked the wrong one. Any current member of the Weare Board of Selectmen might have been a better choice than Justice David Souter.

Souter infamously voted with the majority in a decision last month that gave local and state governments the authority to take private property in the name of economic development rather than for the traditional ?public use? ? roads, public buildings, etc. ? the Constitution has always allowed. In retaliation, a California man proposed that Weare take Justice Souter?s home in the name of economic development so he could build a hotel there.

On Monday night the board responded with a statement, signed by all but one selectman, that read in part: ?The Weare Board of Selectmen wish to inform all interested parties that we are in full support of protecting the property rights of all our citizens. We have no desire to take land from any owner even when a legal taking is possible.?

And with that, the selectmen showed that they have more sense than a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57954

[John]

Well, you beat me to today's paper GT. 


As my sign said:

Stop Clements
The
Maddness
Stops Here!
Stop
Eminent
Domain
in
NEW
HAMPSHIRE

[AlanM]

Re Brutus and the Court

Jefferson tended to agree with Brutus. Here is a quote from Jefferson in a letter to Adams dated 9-11-1804:

You seemed to think that it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independant in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law unconstituional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it; because that power had been confided to them by the Constitution.

[Michael Fisher]

THe only thing a state or federal government can effectively do is give potential employers tax credits for relocating to their areas.? NH lost MB and BMW plants to GA, AL and MI.? ?

Are you endorsing this?  ???

[AlanM]

freedominnh,
Thinking the closure of Portsmouth shipyard will be the best thing for NH. Sure there will be fallout, but getting the Gov out of our local economy is the best thing for NH in the long run.