Re: OT: 2nd Amendment case


"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:sln16493f1625qq6gc0p6pbkq6r3atjgr3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:39:59 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" <huntres23@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message

Whatever happened after the Kelo case?

They moved Kelo's house to a new location and decided to pay the other
homeowners more money.

One of the Justices (Stephens?)...

Souter.

I knew it started with an S. ;)


...happened to have property in a disputed area. Did he lose it?

It wasn't a disputed area. Some libertarian nut jobs just decided to try
to
make it a disputed area. <g>

No, he didn't lose it, because there was no reason for it.

I only saw the beginnings of that. It seemed fitting at the time. Now
that I see the details, it's only good for a laugh. From
http://www.powerpundit.com/archive/002196kelo_could_haunt_justice_souter.php

"The proposed development, called 'The Lost Liberty Hotel' will
feature the 'Just Desserts Café' and include a museum, open to the
public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in
America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free
copy of Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged."

His
opinon sided with the cities who were raping the masses to get land
for mall development, i.e: gov't repo distributed into private hands.

Some of them are still raping the masses, but a lot of states passed
reform
laws to stop it.


I can't seem to find any trace of the articles any more. Strange!
<grumble, grumble>

Wikipedia has a good rundown on the case, which would be hard to find in
this degree of completeness from any official source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I scanned that article but didn't see any link.


This is a case where the 5th Amendment comes out looking as ambiguous as
the
2nd. Does "public use" mean that it has to be public property after it's
taken, or that the public can use it as they see fit, as in selling it to
someone who's going to build private buildings on it?

Don't bother trying to parse it. It doesn't work. <g>

Does it ever?


The state laws are a good solution. It really shouldn't be a
constitutional
issue, IMO. This is a matter of how voters feel they should implement
eminent domain. The constitutional issue is that they should pay fairly
for
anything the state takes. The question of when to take is one that should
be
decided democratically.

It's really too bad that all states haven't stopped the rapes. AAMOF,
Oregon recently (past couple of decades) struck out some of the text
of the squatter's rights in the constitution here and my neighbor's
neighbors are trying to say that the back 1/3 of the friendly
neighbor's lot is now theirs since they've improved the lot (portable
horse corral and a garden. I had no idea that private property,
especially in today's extremely high priced arena, could still be
stolen legally. Luckily,chances are good that they can't document
their squattership for the required ten years. We'll see on my
birthday, August 5th, when I drive them down to court.

So far it has cost him over $7,000 between the survey and the
attorney. He's 90, incontinent, has heart problems, and suffers from a
bad hip. (He'd have replaced it but the doctor said the surgery might
kill him.) The long day of depositions (6+ hours in his wheelchair)
damnear killed him, so I want to see justice done.

Being friendly and neighborly can cost you your land!

That's a sad story, and it's been a problem for a very long time. I think it
dates back to English common law. As our attitudes about private property
have evolved, squatter's rights have come to be viewed with alarm and dismay
by most people, who forget that one was expected to protect and to use his
land in times past, or he could lose his rights to it, to someone who
*would* use and protect it.

Now we assume that it's just ours to do with whatever we want, world without
end, amen. The history of property rights doesn't support that idea.

--
Ed Huntress


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: {OT} Is THIS the kind of health care you want????
    ... Where in the Constitution does it say that I have to pay for your ... medical care he got was GOOD but VERY SLOW. ... Where in the Constitution are any rights denied???? ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Papers Please!: Arrested at Circuit City
    ... on public property you are protected by the constitution of the nation ... you are in to protect your right to privacy. ... CC is "open the public" and don't have exactly the same rights ... as a private property owner who makes no free offer to the general public ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: So Long, France.
    ... other rights than those explicitly stated. ... certainly for things not recognized in the Constitution of the first 10 ... you have to pay for. ... You do have a right to life, but you don't have a right to have it ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: "Yet Another Florida Gun Friendly Law"
    ... I am a firm supporter of private property rights. ... # property for whatever reason they believe in, ... employers and employees, not to have a blanket prohibition against ...
    (rec.guns)
  • Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
    ... No one makes you pay rent. ... You just always lie about what I have plainly said. ... No, we want equal rights, equal opportunity, and AN END TO UNJUST ... The only difference with land is that the law supports your violation ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading