Souter's home to be taken?

[AlanM]

But TN-FSP, the Supreme Court is taking no one's property, so your ZAP argument doesn't hold water. Clements is the clear aggressor.

Then we disagree on this, because I think they violated ZAP. ?They swore that they would never vote to allow property to be taken without just pay and that is what New London is doing. ?They then said that what New London is doing is not against the Constitution. ?This is a lie, goes against what they stand for, should force everyone that voted for it to resign, and is a clear violation of the Constitution, IMHO. ?As a member of the Army, I have swore to protect the Constitution and so I must oppose this SCOTUS finding and search for some legal way to punish all of the Justices that voted for it.

Could you post a source for this?
All the Supreme Court said was that it is not their jurisdiction.

[CNHT]

Whatever, the whole premise that 'CNHT IS DOING IT' is wrong. It's the people of Weare who are 'doing it'.

It sure does get tiresome hearing you claim credit for CNHT while simultaneously disavowing any responsibility.

What I mean is, CNHT will not gain any $$ from this, or any land ownership. They are just helping the people of Weare to expel a resident that has angered them. If we don't, we may lose more court cases like Kelo. Let me ask all of you this -- do you believe in the second amendment? If a madman breaks into your house and tries to kill your whole family are you going to remember to use the golden rule and NOT shoot back? I think not. I don't think you would hold off on shooting him because not only would you want to save your family, but you might prevent him from killing other people as well.
Otherwise, why the heck bother to be packing???
If I can defend myself, darnit, I will shoot.
And the folks in Weare/Plainfield are defending themselves, nay the whole country, against another Souter/Breyer attack.

Same principle applies here only no one gets killed, they are just taught a valuable lesson.
This is not the only case we are working on either...there's more....

[Fluff and Stuff]

But TN-FSP, the Supreme Court is taking no one's property, so your ZAP argument doesn't hold water. Clements is the clear aggressor.

Then we disagree on this, because I think they violated ZAP. ?They swore that they would never vote to allow property to be taken without just pay and that is what New London is doing. ?They then said that what New London is doing is not against the Constitution. ?This is a lie, goes against what they stand for, should force everyone that voted for it to resign, and is a clear violation of the Constitution, IMHO. ?As a member of the Army, I have swore to protect the Constitution and so I must oppose this SCOTUS finding and search for some legal way to punish all of the Justices that voted for it.

Could you post a source for this?
All the Supreme Court said was that it is not their jurisdiction.

Just like I was swore into my position, they were swore in. ?During the swearing it, they have to swear to protect the United States Constitution.

[AlanM]

TN-FSP,
Where in the US Constitution does it say ED cannot be used.

[Fluff and Stuff]

TN-FSP,
Where in the US Constitution does it say ED cannot be used.

Amendment V
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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[AlanM]

The Supreme Court is given the job of deciding the Constitutionality of all laws by the Constitution itself. That is the big deception. They can interpret it (and have) any way they want. The Congress will not remove them as long as they are doing Congress" bidding. It is all a big deception. The Constitution means what the current Supreme Court says it does, nothing more, nothing less. The Statists have long known this. Mr. Lincoln destroyed any vestige of honesty in Government. I say, the heck with the Constitution and all Government. W can, and will, rule ourselves.

[Fluff and Stuff]

The Supreme Court is given the job of deciding the Constitutionality of all laws by the Constitution itself. That is the big deception. They can interpret it (and have) any way they want. The Congress will not remove them as long as they are doing Congress" bidding. It is all a big deception. The Constitution means what the current Supreme Court says it does, nothing more, nothing less. The Statists have long known this. Mr. Lincoln destroyed any vestige of honesty in Government. I say, the heck with the Constitution and all Government. W can, and will, rule ourselves.

I disagree.  I understand the Constitution to say that the New London land grab is against the Constitution and the SCOTUS is violating the Constitution by saying it is ok.  This forces many to advocate and work towards legal actions that punish the SCOTUS justices that voted for New London, as I am required to by my swore oath.

[AlanM]

?nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Notice it does not stop after "public use". If it did ED would be illegal. Of course they would still find creative ways to interpret it if it did.

[Fluff and Stuff]

?nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Notice it does not stop after "public use". If it did ED would be illegal. Of course they would still find creative ways to interpret it if it did.

Right, but they were not justly compensated.

Similarly, what is going on in Londonderry is against the Constitution and I have to support any legal effort to punish those that are violating the Constitution.

[Kat Kanning]

What I mean is, CNHT will not gain any $$ from this, or any land ownership. They are just helping the people of Weare to expel a resident that has angered them.

Cities should be able to expel residents who take unpopular views??  Just because they've angered a lot of citizens??  And take their land for it?  Yowsa, better make sure you take politically correct positions from now on!

[Michael Fisher]

Is CNHT not even going to take responsibility for its actions, now?   ???

[CNHT]

What I mean is, CNHT will not gain any $$ from this, or any land ownership. They are just helping the people of Weare to expel a resident that has angered them.

Cities should be able to expel residents who take unpopular views??  Just because they've angered a lot of citizens??  And take their land for it?  Yowsa, better make sure you take politically correct positions from now on!

Well he has angered them because he has voted to take away the rights of others...sorta like shunning?   

Anyway this should make you happy:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13793461.htm

[citizen_142002]

Souter's property can be taken by the town because of his own ruling. If there had been a supreme court in nazi Germany, and a Jewish justice had ruled that the Verrmacht had the power to oppress and kill Jews, would you feel very sorry for that fellow when there came a knock a the door?
I wouldn't. Those who rule aren't above the law, and I think it is a good thing to remind members of the judiciary of that little fact.

[tracysaboe]

He's the 'government' and taking his property to give back to the people is fair in that it subjects him to the same laws.

Fairness is overrated.

Tracy

[aries]

Well since the town rejected the call to turn his house over to the Lost Liberty Hotel people... I anticipate that some disgruntled fellow will end up toasting it or vandalizing it.