Comments on Pro Libertate: Rented Thugs

Keep in mind that the U.S. constitution is intende...

2006-10-28T02:52:00.000-06:00

Keep in mind that the U.S. constitution is intended as a written chain limiting the federal leviathan's power, not the states, as they have their own constitutions.

Sorry, I forgot about the 14th amendment ratified in 1868. Arguably, the 13th amendment ratified in 1865 was also a slam on individual state rights. Interestingly, MS didn't itself ratify the 13th until 1995.

Anyhow, Grigg and others probably don't agree, but I say that the dawn of the end of the republic, as it was constructed by the Founders, really began in 1865 and has progressed ever so slooooooowly over the decades since and in recent years is accelerating toward total burnout.

i think you misunderstood me. i agree that this sh...

2006-10-28T02:36:00.000-06:00

i think you misunderstood me. i agree that this should have stayed at the state level. my point was that changing the laws at the state level will do no good because the states still retain the power to snatch and grab your property.

So if changing a state law (or constitution) will have little effect on said state, how would changing or enacting a federal law (or U.S. Constitution) be any different at the federal level? The feds are certifiably not any more inclined than the states to abide by their own laws and statutes unless, of course, the issue in question is amiable to their position.

Nevermind, that's another entire thread's worth. Don't allow your neurons to become entangled in that thought ;).

the solution i was proposing was to remove the ability to snatch property at the constitutional level--an amendment that strikes down eminent domain AND prevents anyone or anything from taking property without the owners consent except for the payment of a debt.

Keep in mind that the U.S. constitution is intended as a written chain limiting the federal leviathan's power, not the states, as they have their own constitutions. So a national constitutional amendment is pointless in that context. Besides, the fifth amendment already makes it monkey simple clear that private land can ONLY be seized for a public use (not transfer to another private entity for any reason) and ONLY after just compensation (i.e. market price) is paid to the current private owner for it. By being for strictly a public use and the just compensation requirement is what, in fact, is supposed to act as a major deterrent to governments even considering eminent domain in the first place, unless absolutely necessary. Most of the state constitutions mirror the federal constitution in essence, BTW.

Nevertheless, the bottom line here is that most commoners had no idea or clue that any time a state or local government fascist cooperative (NLDC in this particular instance) receives even ONE CENT's worth of federal aid or subsidy, it becomes a FEDERAL issue by default and subject to the federal judiciary as well as any other branch of leviathan, regardless.

Any entity that even so much as sips a droplet from the federal trough is fair game for regulation and control.

Folk need to pick up their cluesticks. But, as I've said in past threads in so many words already, we're already past the point of returning to a genuine constitutional republic. The reason? The commoners of today have conveniently forgotten John Adams' quintessential statements about what provides the key vitality for the continued existence of our constitutional republican form of government. Am I surprised? Not really, although ironically sometimes I hate seein' forests when I'd rather see the purdy trees instead, like many others do ;).

bantam,i think you misunderstood me. i agree that...

2006-10-27T11:30:00.000-06:00

bantam,

i think you misunderstood me. i agree that this should have stayed at the state level. my point was that changing the laws at the state level will do no good because the states still retain the power to snatch and grab your property. the solution i was proposing was to remove the ability to snatch property at the constitutional level--an amendment that strikes down eminent domain AND prevents anyone or anything from taking property without the owners consent except for the payment of a debt. the bottom line is no more confiscation of property unless you owe someone money.

It doesn't matter, rick, if it's a state issue, it...

2006-10-27T09:05:00.000-06:00

It doesn't matter, rick, if it's a state issue, it's a state issue, period. The Constitution does not exist to tell the states what to do, even if it's for the supposed good of the people.

Will is right about this being a federal issue, in THIS instance, because of the fed connections. I wrote a piece about Kelo some time ago and said that, while what the state did was horrible, the Supreme Court should never have heard it. I see now that I was wrong on that point, but the Kelo issue is still a giant mess.

will,great piece. i don't think though that measu...

2006-10-25T16:55:00.000-06:00

will,

great piece. i don't think though that measures at the state level will do any good. why would a state limit it's power to grab your prooperty. perhaps most states "omitted themselves" in that they can still grab property? the real solution would have been to ban this kind of crap at the constitutional level. whoover wrote that in there ought to have their graves exhumed, defiled, and their bodies hauled away and dumped into the atlantic.

I had believed the Right was misguided on the Kelo...

2006-10-25T16:39:00.000-06:00

I had believed the Right was misguided on the Kelo decision, because horrible as it was, the affair was a local matter. Federal judges have no more right to intervene here than they do with nativiity scenes on public property.

But now that I've found out that the NDLC was federally funded, I reverse my position. Kelo was a disaster.

Will,I’m going to have a chance next month to vote...

2006-10-25T16:15:00.000-06:00

Will,

I’m going to have a chance next month to vote on California Proposition 90, an Eminent Domain reform law that if passed will be part of California’s constitution. To hear the opposition tell it, Prop 90 is a horribly written law that will raise taxes, erode environmental protections, reduce funding for public safety/health/education, slow project approval and infrastructure development, and hurt our neighborhoods and quality of life. Frankly, if they could make the claim, they’d contend that in addition to all of the above, Prop 90 would cause all of us here in the People’s Democratic Republic of California to suffer curved spines, hairy palms and failing eyesight in addition to causing our country losing the war.

When I looked to see which groups opposed the measure, the ones that caught my attention were a veritable who’s-who of left-wing unions and organizations that dine rather copiously and regularly at the public trough or are supported by the left-leaners in L.A., S.F and Sacramento, i.e., the Sierra Club, the California Teacher’s Association, the California Professional Firefighter’s, the California Police Chiefs, the California Nurse’s Association, the California Labor Association and the League of Women Voters.

I read through the proposition and it seems like the kind of legislation that would prevent the kind of situation from developing here that has afflicted New London, CT. I plan on voting yes on the mutha’. I can only hope that the similar drives that you mentioned in other States pass. As you stated, these matters should remain in the hands of the States and not involve the Feds. Keep on spreading the word Will.

Captain Kirk