NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there anyone else out there truly frightened for our few remaining freedoms? I'm in the United States, but I can't think of any place that's better off in terms of freedoms, and I'm angered by the oppression. I think the obvious thing on everyone's mind is that totally bizarre decision on eminent domain, but it's also the medical marijuana, social security, victimless crimes, the 3% excise tax on phones to fund the Spanish American war, taxes in general, the state declaring its "right" to use force to insure that morality is followed. I'm disgusted, fearful, mad, upset, and greatly saddened. Please, for the sake of my sanity, tell me you feel my pain.

Is there anyone else out there truly frightened for our few remaining freedoms? I'm in the United States, but I can't think of any place that's better off in terms of freedoms, and I'm angered by the oppression. I think the obvious thing on everyone's mind is that totally bizarre decision on eminent domain, but it's also the medical marijuana, social security, victimless crimes, the 3% excise tax on phones to fund the Spanish American war, taxes in general, the state declaring its "right" to use force to insure that morality is followed. I'm disgusted, fearful, mad, upset, and greatly saddened. Please, for the sake of my sanity, tell me you feel my pain.
Try to gain some perspective. The Constitution is still in place, we haven't really lost any freedoms ( unless you know something I don't ), and things have a way of coming back around. Relax! [ hands you a beer ] :)

Eminent domain is a truly frightening bill which in no times may cause people to go, literally, up in arms. I love to say it, but no where else in the world will get as good a combination of freedoms, services, and protection. If its really getting you down this much, then go out there and make your voice count, rather than fester in these forums.

I don't quite understand why you would have to be a woman to cry, but to be honest, I'm not that terrified. However, I might be swayed if you went a bit more in-depth on some of the topics that frighten you. For example, what about Social Security bothers you? Do you dislike the institution, the way it is currently run, the way it might be run, etc.?

Try to gain some perspective. The Constitution is still in place, we haven't really lost any freedoms ( unless you know something I don't ), and things have a way of coming back around. Relax! [ hands you a beer ] :)

Well the supreme court just rubber stamped wholesale landgrabing by private property developers.

There really is nothing else to say. Without the security of private property the rest is just window dressing, we are now no better than a tinpot african dictatorship.

I think the simplest way to explain pretty much my entire idealogical/moral/political/philosophical beliefs is as follows:

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in God. I don't deny the existence of one, but I have no reason to believe in one. I furthermore have no reason to believe I'll have any life after this, that I've had any before this, and that I'll continue to exist after my body is destroyed. I simply have no reason to believe it, nor disbelieve it. Assuming worst case scenario, there's nothing after this and in the infinite time period of existence, I get at most, 100 years. That's not even a heartbeat compared to the age of man, let alone this planet, which is dwarfed by the supposed age of the universe. So I've got hardly any time to live and enjoy existence. What right has any man to take anything from me? From taking opportunity to experiment with mind-altering substances, from taking my money in taxes (right now I don't make enough to be taxed, but I will be one day), from taking my property for "the greater good" when it's mostly to line the pockets of an already wealthy company that just so happens to increase the budget of a government who denies me my freedom in the first place. From all of that comes oppression. What right has any man to say unto another "You may not do that because it's not something I want." That is the most selfish thing I have ever heard. It's not even the sort of selfishness Ayn Rand fought for, it's just utter injustice. It's nauseating.

The title of this thread isnt doing you ANY good.
Your lucky that we dealt with the Uber-Feminists a while back, or you would be SCREWED right now. Or rather, you wouldnt be screwing. Ever.

Anyway, if your REALLY scared, move to Europe, or Canada. That might be a good idea, if you go to Canada your money is worth almost twice as much :rolleyes:

The title of this thread isnt doing you ANY good.
Your lucky that we dealt with the Uber-Feminists a while back, or you would be SCREWED right now. Or rather, you wouldnt be screwing. Ever.

Anyway, if your REALLY scared, move to Europe, or Canada. That might be a good idea, if you go to Canada your money is worth almost twice as much :rolleyes:


Please, I'm smart enough not to care what a bunch of pissed off glorified bra-burners think about me, through the Internet or otherwise. And God, Europe and Canada would be the worst place for me to go.

Please, I'm smart enough not to care what a bunch of pissed off glorified bra-burners think about me, through the Internet or otherwise. And God, Europe and Canada would be the worst place for me to go.

You could try the Cayman Islands. You are still allowed to own property there, the weather is good, and they are dead tolerant of weed smoking.

It's not really a democracy, but it has no crime and a higher per capita income than the US.

You could try the Cayman Islands. You are still allowed to own property there, the weather is good, and they are dead tolerant of weed smoking.

It's not really a democracy, but it has no crime and a higher per capita income than the US.

Sounds awesome. I hate democracy. The rule of majority against the minority is not what I call freedom.

Sounds awesome. I hate democracy. The rule of majority against the minority is not what I call freedom.

I was quite fond of it when I visited. Given the tomfoolery here these days I am seriously considering moving. I haven't quite figured out how yet.

Well the supreme court just rubber stamped wholesale landgrabing by private property developers.

There really is nothing else to say. Without the security of private property the rest is just window dressing, we are now no better than a tinpot african dictatorship.
As I posted in the thread which addressed this issue, governments have always had the right of "eminent domain," meaning that they can appropriate private real estate, usually with "fair market value" being given for the property. The case in point was brought by a property owner who questioned if the right of eminent domain extended to local goverments who wanted to appropriate private property for purporses of industrial development. If local governments attempt to do this too often, the public will be up in arms and none of the officials will be reelected.

The system is self-adjusting. :)

Sounds awesome. I hate democracy. The rule of majority against the minority is not what I call freedom.
Which is the primary reason the US was created as a Federal Republic rather than a "pure" democracy.

As I posted in the thread which addressed this issue, governments have always had the right of "eminent domain," meaning that they can appropriate private real estate, usually with "fair market value" being given for the property. The case in point was brought by a property owner who questioned if the right of eminent domain extended to local goverments who wanted to appropriate private property for purporses of industrial development. If local governments attempt to do this too often, the public will be up in arms and none of the officials will be reelected.

The system is self-adjusting. :)


How can they claim this right? How can you claim to take anything from a man, to detract from his existence?

Well the supreme court just rubber stamped wholesale landgrabing by private property developers.

There really is nothing else to say. Without the security of private property the rest is just window dressing, we are now no better than a tinpot african dictatorship.

Well, I'm totally against their decision, but to be fair, it's not really their place to stop it. With both this and the marijuana decision they basically said "if you've elected a totally corrupt local and state government, then you shouldn't be surprised that they make bad decisions. This isn't a partisan comment, though I am most definitly a partisan poster, both parties are too callous and authoritarian for my tastes, but they have a point. If you vote for local rulers who are all in the pockets of local business interests, then you can't cry over it when they make decisions that screw you over.

You have some excuse for not knowing who to vote for for president. You've never met the guy. You've probably never had a chance to go talk to him. You have no such excuse with city councilmen and your mayor. You may not have ever met them, but you could go and attend a council meeting. Get some friends together and make some noise. Let local politicians know that if they make decisions like this you will vote them out. If they make decisions like this twice you (collective, this sort of thing should be a community effor) will lynch them, and then vote in a council that will legalize lynchings already commited before they came into office. It worked for Shay's rebels, it can work for you.

How can they claim this right? How can you claim to take anything from a man, to detract from his existence?
There are many on here who believe that all private property should be confiscated by the state. It's all in what political system your country has. In the US, we have a Constitution which doesn't prohibit local governments from exercising eminent domain. If you would like to see that change, propose a constitutional amendment proscribing it.

There are many on here who believe that all private property should be confiscated by the state.

There are many on here whom I would kill without remorse.

There are many on here whom I would kill without remorse.


Am I allowed to use this as evidence against atheists who claim to live moral lives?

Am I allowed to use this as evidence against atheists who claim to live moral lives?

Use it for whatever you want but that'd be stereotyping. I'm just a person, not the spokes person for every atheist. Ask an atheist though why he restricts himself with a burdensome morality. If he says it's not a burden, and he doesn't feel restricted, then why does he consider it morality? It's then just choice. Morality is non-existent if you don't believe in a higher purpose to it, and I don't see any atheist would believe that.

As I posted in the thread which addressed this issue, governments have always had the right of "eminent domain," meaning that they can appropriate private real estate, usually with "fair market value" being given for the property. The case in point was brought by a property owner who questioned if the right of eminent domain extended to local goverments who wanted to appropriate private property for purporses of industrial development. If local governments attempt to do this too often, the public will be up in arms and none of the officials will be reelected.

The system is self-adjusting. :)

Historically, governments have not had a complete right of eminent domain. The scope of the power was limited by the consitution and they were limited as to the purposes property could be appropriated for.

The supreme court has given sanction to an massively enlarged power. Now, all that is required is a land use study and an economic development plan. Neither of which are subject to review. For example you don't want old people in your neighborhood now, because that is a sign of "decline" and therefore urban blight, which would justify excersing the power to build a shopping mall.

Also, the residents never recieve full compensation for their lost property.

As to the point about voting people out of office that is just not true. I live in NYC, many times the power of emminent domain has been abused here, most notably in the construction of the World Trade Center. And it did not matter a jot. In a town of 25,000 residents, it really won't effect anything if you seize a few houses; as has been shown in New Jersey and New London Co.(The same people who wholesale condemned viable well maintained neighborhoods - while acting as the strongmen for million dollar condo developers - were either re-elected or went on to higher office.)

More frightening is that it creates another option for spendthrift politians. historically, spendthrifts could spend until the debt limit - either imposed or because their munibonds became distressed/junk. At that point spending would have to be cut, or taxes raised to an unsustainable level. This limit no-longer pertains. As in Norwood Ohio, when a municipal government has foolishly spent itself into a hole, it can now make a faustian bargain with a property developer in the hopes that by exercising its power of eminent domain the tax base can be substantianly enlarged. Mostly by converting older residential real estate into commercial property.

In any case, the entire basis of our economic system is based upon the notion of voluntary exchange. When government can direct property be transfered from one party to another without the mediation of a market system, the entire basis of the real property market collapses. You may think your house is worth $250,000 on the open market, but watch what happens when a developer seeks to have it condemned.

This is nothing more than government sanctioned theft on the behalf of those that have political influence. And even if you have a somewhat sanguine attitude towards the exercise of muncipal powers, the immorality of the whole scheme should offend you. Not to mention the Supreme Court just threw the bill of rights onto the ground an squeezed out a huge fucking turd on it.

Finally, if you are over 55, and live in a single family home in a neighborhood with a smattering of other retirees and nice views. Be afraid. You're next. Especially if your town is running a budget deficit.

My only hope now is that Congress excerises its commerce clause power, and slaps the states down.

There are many on here who believe that all private property should be confiscated by the state. It's all in what political system your country has. In the US, we have a Constitution which doesn't prohibit local governments from exercising eminent domain. If you would like to see that change, propose a constitutional amendment proscribing it.

We have that amendment already, its called the Fifth. Didn't work very well did it.

Well the supreme court just rubber stamped wholesale landgrabing by private property developers.

There really is nothing else to say. Without the security of private property the rest is just window dressing, we are now no better than a tinpot african dictatorship.

Stop the bullshit hyperbole.

The Supreme Court did no such thing. To the contrary, it expressly said that such a taking would be unconstitutional.

Private property rights are still secure in this country.

If your doomsday hysteria were accurate, then freedom ended with Berman v. Parker (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=348&invol=26), 348 U. S. 26 (1954) -- if not Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=200&invol=527&pageno=531), 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).

And, all life on this planet ceased to exist with Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=467&invol=229), 467 U. S. 229 (1984).

Stop the bullshit hyperbole.

The Supreme Court did no such thing. To the contrary, it expressly said that such a taking would be unconstitutional.

Private property rights are still secure in this country.

If your doomsday hysteria were accurate, then freedom ended with Berman v. Parker (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=348&invol=26), 348 U. S. 26 (1954) -- if not Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=200&invol=527&pageno=531), 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).

And, all life on this planet ceased to exist with Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=467&invol=229), 467 U. S. 229 (1984).

I read the decision. All you need is to show blight, and have an urban development plan. Neither of which are subject to review. (And can be prepared by the developer).

Look at the residents of Longbranch New Jersey, and tell me it is not exactly what I have described.

A land use assesment can say anything. And are usually not even prepared by credentialled professionals. Did you know for example that tall weeds in the yard are a sign of blight? Or old people.

Take the partisan hat off.

Private property rights are still secure in this country.

Poor guy, I think the strain has snapped him.

I read the decision. All you need is to show blight, and have an urban development plan. Neither of which are subject to review. (And can be prepared by the developer).

Look at the residents of Longbranch New Jersey, and tell me it is not exactly what I have described.

A land use assesment can say anything. And are usually not even prepared by credentialled professionals. Did you know for example that tall weeds in the yard are a sign of blight? Or old people.

Take the partisan hat off.

Nice ad hominem. Partisanship doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. :headbang:

This type of eminent domain has been used by both Democrats and Republicans. 3 of the 5 Justices in the majority in Kelo are Republicans.

And, no, it is not exactly what you have described. The case had nothing to do with blight or under what circumstances land may be condemned. It had only to do with for what purposes land may be taken using eminent domain.

In fact, most of the things you complaing about were not disputed. (Ignorning Justice Thomas's rantings that would overturn over a century of precedent.) Justice O'Connor's dissent makes clear that the dissenters do not object to condemnation of blighted property -- or even non-blighted property if it is part of a blighted neighborhood. See Berman v. Parker (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=348&invol=26), 348 U. S. 26 (1954). The dissenters also approve of land redistribution to cure "concentration" of land ownership. See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=467&invol=229), 467 U. S. 229 (1984). The dissenters also approve of showing great deference and exercising only the narrowest of review of state or local land use decisions.

The real question was whether economic development counts as public use. The majority held that the question was already well decided by prior precedent. Justice O'Connor sets forth are reasonable argument to the contrary, but recognizes the question is close.

But, more to the point, why didn't the world end when the Supreme Court made similar decisions in the past? This is not a new revolution in caselaw. How is this different from what the Court has already held in 1896, 1906, and particularly 1954 and 1984.

I'm not a particular fan of the decision and I complained about this nasty trend in the use of eminent domain in these forums long ago, but all this running around like Chicken Little is pathetic.

(And, as I asked in another thread, why aren't all the conservatives and libertarians calling this a great victory for "states' rights"? That is usually the mantra we hear on a civil rights issue.)

We have that amendment already, its called the Fifth. Didn't work very well did it.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit eminent domain.

To the contrary, it expressly recognizes its validity, but places 2 conditions on it: the taking must be for public use and it must be for just compensation.

Your rhetoric is really running away from your reason.

You're hearing no such outcry from Libertarians because we want individual's rights, which this is clearly a violation of. And most of the time state's rights are usually fought about because they wish to override federal control, as federal rule can be stricter than what the locals wish, and this allows for more oppressive governmental rule.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit eminent domain.

To the contrary, it expressly recognizes its validity, but places 2 conditions on it: the taking must be for public use and it must be for just compensation.

Your rhetoric is really running away from your reason.

The eminent domain brought up by this topic was implied to mean the recent case, which is not for public use. It may increase public welfare (which I'm still against that justification) but it is clearly not public use.

The eminent domain brought up by this topic was implied to mean the recent case, which is not for public use. It may increase public welfare (which I'm still against that justification) but it is clearly not public use.

Try reading the decision. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-108.html ) (2005).

If you don't agree with eminent domain for public use, then you've got a problem with the Constitution itself.

If you have a problem with equating "public use" with public purpose, you've got a problem with 110 years of caselaw. See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=164&invol=112&pageno=158), 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896)

The whole point of the reason decision was what constitutes "public use." The Court merely held that the City development plan constituted a public purpose. Thus, using eminent domain to take the land in return for just compensation would not violate the 5th Amendment.

Although it can be justified in some cases, I have a political problem with the general policy of using eminent domain for economic development. I think that is bad policy.

I also have a problem with what is sometimes called just compensation.

But those are different issues than whether the 5th Amendment was violated or whether private property rights have suddenly evaporated.

Okay, here's this-----

As long as American citizens are allowed to keep and bear firearms with only moderate regulations and laws, the American public will always have the option of an open revolution. The threat of physical violence is something that is impossible to ignore, since it is so direct and harmful. Immediate communication, if you will. Don't get me wrong, this kind of power (namely, violence) should be used judiciously, but it is the last resort power of the people to throw off the shackles of oppression and tyranny. This concept of fighting for our freedom is a root property in the USA and part of our culture. Just remember the Revolutionary War. To remove the freedom to own and operate weapons is to tame the American public, which just makes us everyone's bitch.

I welcome responses.

Try reading the decision.

Try reading the vote count. The way you babble on we'd have to wonder why they even agreed to hear the case in the first place since according to you the judgment was going to be so obvious. But FYI, It was 5-4, just one more going the other way and the entire precedent would gone the way of the individual and the property rights of individuals would have had more protection...

What would you have done then?

If you don't agree with eminent domain for public use, then you've got a problem with the Constitution itself.

That much is obvious. I want freedom. I don't care about what is or isn't constitutional, and whether or not this decision is based on precedent. It is a clear violation of individual property rights. And it's fucking up my career plans.

Historically, governments have not had a complete right of eminent domain. The scope of the power was limited by the consitution and they were limited as to the purposes property could be appropriated for.

The supreme court has given sanction to an massively enlarged power. Now, all that is required is a land use study and an economic development plan. Neither of which are subject to review. For example you don't want old people in your neighborhood now, because that is a sign of "decline" and therefore urban blight, which would justify excersing the power to build a shopping mall.

Also, the residents never recieve full compensation for their lost property.

As to the point about voting people out of office that is just not true. I live in NYC, many times the power of emminent domain has been abused here, most notably in the construction of the World Trade Center. And it did not matter a jot. In a town of 25,000 residents, it really won't effect anything if you seize a few houses; as has been shown in New Jersey and New London Co.(The same people who wholesale condemned viable well maintained neighborhoods - while acting as the strongmen for million dollar condo developers - were either re-elected or went on to higher office.)

More frightening is that it creates another option for spendthrift politians. historically, spendthrifts could spend until the debt limit - either imposed or because their munibonds became distressed/junk. At that point spending would have to be cut, or taxes raised to an unsustainable level. This limit no-longer pertains. As in Norwood Ohio, when a municipal government has foolishly spent itself into a hole, it can now make a faustian bargain with a property developer in the hopes that by exercising its power of eminent domain the tax base can be substantianly enlarged. Mostly by converting older residential real estate into commercial property.

In any case, the entire basis of our economic system is based upon the notion of voluntary exchange. When government can direct property be transfered from one party to another without the mediation of a market system, the entire basis of the real property market collapses. You may think your house is worth $250,000 on the open market, but watch what happens when a developer seeks to have it condemned.

This is nothing more than government sanctioned theft on the behalf of those that have political influence. And even if you have a somewhat sanguine attitude towards the exercise of muncipal powers, the immorality of the whole scheme should offend you. Not to mention the Supreme Court just threw the bill of rights onto the ground an squeezed out a huge fucking turd on it.

Finally, if you are over 55, and live in a single family home in a neighborhood with a smattering of other retirees and nice views. Be afraid. You're next. Especially if your town is running a budget deficit.

My only hope now is that Congress excerises its commerce clause power, and slaps the states down.
Hmmm. You make a very good case. I wasn't aware of many of the things you mention. [ makes a note to check things out at his own municipal building ]

Is there anyone else out there truly frightened for our few remaining freedoms? I'm in the United States, but I can't think of any place that's better off in terms of freedoms, and I'm angered by the oppression. I think the obvious thing on everyone's mind is that totally bizarre decision on eminent domain, but it's also the medical marijuana, social security, victimless crimes, the 3% excise tax on phones to fund the Spanish American war, taxes in general, the state declaring its "right" to use force to insure that morality is followed. I'm disgusted, fearful, mad, upset, and greatly saddened. Please, for the sake of my sanity, tell me you feel my pain.

Frightened? Not really. I know what it is like here. I may indeed emigrate when I'm older. There do exist better places.
Go Netherlands if you want your drugs and prostitution
Go Scandinavia, most of Europe or Canada if you want your comprehensive social safety net, more social equality and free healthcare
Go Malta if you want less tax.
Go anywhere besides the US, Mexico, Ireland, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morroco and Iran if you want less forcing Religous morals on you.
Less war, and therefore no phone tax? Go anywhere but here and places we plan on bombing and occupying.

For your sanity, I often feel those pains. Why God! Why can't I smoke a little of the chronic if I want to and do it in my own home! Whyyyyyy!!!! :)

Frightened? Not really. I know what it is like here. I may indeed emigrate when I'm older. There do exist better places.
Go Netherlands if you want your drugs and prostitution
Go Scandinavia, most of Europe or Canada if you want your comprehensive social safety net, more social equality and free healthcare
Go Malta if you want less tax.
Go anywhere besides the US, Mexico, Ireland, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morroco and Iran if you want less forcing Religous morals on you.
Less war, and therefore no phone tax? Go anywhere but here and places we plan on bombing and occupying.

For your sanity, I often feel those pains. Why God! Why can't I smoke a little of the chronic if I want to and do it in my own home! Whyyyyyy!!!! :)

No man has the right to tell me what to do, thusly I will not run from these haters of freedom. What I'm afraid of is my rash behavior may get me killed in a "suicide by cop" manner.

Okay, here's this-----

As long as American citizens are allowed to keep and bear firearms with only moderate regulations and laws, the American public will always have the option of an open revolution. The threat of physical violence is something that is impossible to ignore, since it is so direct and harmful. Immediate communication, if you will. Don't get me wrong, this kind of power (namely, violence) should be used judiciously, but it is the last resort power of the people to throw off the shackles of oppression and tyranny. This concept of fighting for our freedom is a root property in the USA and part of our culture. Just remember the Revolutionary War. To remove the freedom to own and operate weapons is to tame the American public, which just makes us everyone's bitch.

I welcome responses.
Pity rifles are so utterly fucking worthless against bombers and tanks.

Pity rifles are so utterly fucking worthless against bombers and tanks.

That's why we stomped the shit out of the Viet Cong

That's why we stomped the shit out of the Viet Cong
Pity bombers and tanks can't be effectively used in the fucking jungle.

Pity bombers and tanks can't be effectively used in the fucking jungle.

But they can in a concrete jungle where you have no fucking clue who's the enemy and who's just an innocent bystander?

That much is obvious. I want freedom. I don't care about what is or isn't constitutional, and whether or not this decision is based on precedent. It is a clear violation of individual property rights. And it's fucking up my career plans.That is so something I would say! ;)

((Just I'm nicer.))

HI im linden i need a girl friend want to go out with me send me a email at ljcool05@hotmail.com ;) if not im depressed :headbang: and i live in australia :eek: and i like usa girls :fluffle: and i think the goverment is to strict :( .

But they can in a concrete jungle where you have no fucking clue who's the enemy and who's just an innocent bystander?

Well, that has never stopped the US before.
Welcome to reality, the only freedom that is certain lies inside your skull. Everything else is illusion and denial.

US should handle their internal problems, before they let them spill over the rest of the world, instead of playing police while people starve on their streets.
The war on terrorism is just a shield to hold up to protect and endorse immoral and egocentric politics.

Do as Heinlein proposed if you feel unhappy, he had similar ideas.

lol well the neo cons killed the constition, supreme court is in there pocket and they sort of have gone against constition, and cant think of any place with more rights and freedoms? well let me list them. Australia, Canada, Britain, Germany all the nordic nations, Sweden just to name a few i am pretty sure there are a few more oh austria lol italy spain that sort of thing but uhh yeah the US is totally unfree i mean if the constition is in affect umm how come marijuana is illegal and there are taxes :)

Hello any 1gona listen to me i need a girlfriend please semd me a email at ljcool05@hotmail.com

lol well the neo cons killed the constition, supreme court is in there pocket and they sort of have gone against constition, and cant think of any place with more rights and freedoms? well let me list them. Australia, Canada, Britain, Germany all the nordic nations, Sweden just to name a few i am pretty sure there are a few more oh austria lol italy spain that sort of thing but uhh yeah the US is totally unfree i mean if the constition is in affect umm how come marijuana is illegal and there are taxes :)

The liberals here have also violated our freedom in idiotic institutions such as forced charity and anti-self defense legislation. No place in the world is free, only some places are more free in certain respects. I am refusing to run to another nation, this is where I was born and no man has the right to persecute me for living free.

Sounds awesome. I hate democracy. The rule of majority against the minority is not what I call freedom.
So the rule of minority over majority is?

There are many on here whom I would kill without remorse.
You say this after you had said earlier that nobody should have rghts to take away rights from anybody else.
How is it that those two positions fit together?


On a different note, you sound a bit like an 'anarcho-capitalist'. Am I assuming correctly?

So the rule of minority over majority is?

Yes, there are only two options. :rolleyes: There shouldn't be any rule except in the most strictly limited manner.

You say this after you had said earlier that nobody should have rghts to take away rights from anybody else.
How is it that those two positions fit together?


On a different note, you sound a bit like an 'anarcho-capitalist'. Am I assuming correctly?

I would kill them for attempting to take away private property. I'll admit my original post wasn't clear, but if it's something they believe that's fine. If it's something they act on against the will of the people they're affecting, then I'd gladly slaughter them.

As for 'anarcho-capitalist', I've never heard the term and always considered myself a Libertarian.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca] The Constitution is still in place, we haven't really lost any freedoms ( unless you know something I don't )

I take it you haven't heard of a little department there in the US called Homeland Security.............................

Is there anyone else out there truly frightened for our few remaining freedoms? I'm in the United States, but I can't think of any place that's better off in terms of freedoms, and I'm angered by the oppression. I think the obvious thing on everyone's mind is that totally bizarre decision on eminent domain, but it's also the medical marijuana, social security, victimless crimes, the 3% excise tax on phones to fund the Spanish American war, taxes in general, the state declaring its "right" to use force to insure that morality is followed. I'm disgusted, fearful, mad, upset, and greatly saddened. Please, for the sake of my sanity, tell me you feel my pain.I can see where you're coming from, but really, the alternative is even more frightening.

I can see where you're coming from, but really, the alternative is even more frightening.

The alternative is freedom. How is that frightening? Where each individual is responsible for his or her own welfare.

Historically, governments have not had a complete right of eminent domain. The scope of the power was limited by the consitution and they were limited as to the purposes property could be appropriated for.

The supreme court has given sanction to an massively enlarged power. Now, all that is required is a land use study and an economic development plan. Neither of which are subject to review. For example you don't want old people in your neighborhood now, because that is a sign of "decline" and therefore urban blight, which would justify excersing the power to build a shopping mall.

Also, the residents never recieve full compensation for their lost property.

As to the point about voting people out of office that is just not true. I live in NYC, many times the power of emminent domain has been abused here, most notably in the construction of the World Trade Center. And it did not matter a jot. In a town of 25,000 residents, it really won't effect anything if you seize a few houses; as has been shown in New Jersey and New London Co.(The same people who wholesale condemned viable well maintained neighborhoods - while acting as the strongmen for million dollar condo developers - were either re-elected or went on to higher office.)

More frightening is that it creates another option for spendthrift politians. historically, spendthrifts could spend until the debt limit - either imposed or because their munibonds became distressed/junk. At that point spending would have to be cut, or taxes raised to an unsustainable level. This limit no-longer pertains. As in Norwood Ohio, when a municipal government has foolishly spent itself into a hole, it can now make a faustian bargain with a property developer in the hopes that by exercising its power of eminent domain the tax base can be substantianly enlarged. Mostly by converting older residential real estate into commercial property.

In any case, the entire basis of our economic system is based upon the notion of voluntary exchange. When government can direct property be transfered from one party to another without the mediation of a market system, the entire basis of the real property market collapses. You may think your house is worth $250,000 on the open market, but watch what happens when a developer seeks to have it condemned.

This is nothing more than government sanctioned theft on the behalf of those that have political influence. And even if you have a somewhat sanguine attitude towards the exercise of muncipal powers, the immorality of the whole scheme should offend you. Not to mention the Supreme Court just threw the bill of rights onto the ground an squeezed out a huge fucking turd on it.

Finally, if you are over 55, and live in a single family home in a neighborhood with a smattering of other retirees and nice views. Be afraid. You're next. Especially if your town is running a budget deficit.

My only hope now is that Congress excerises its commerce clause power, and slaps the states down.OMG
I have to kill myself now. I think I actually agree with you.
Cat, please explain things a little more clearly so I don't have to kill myself. Otherwise I'm stuck agreeing with Lac.

The alternative is freedom. How is that frightening? Where each individual is responsible for his or her own welfare.close, the alternative is Freedom without Restraint.

close, the alternative is Freedom without Restraint.

Is there any other kind of freedom?

Is there any other kind of freedom?yes, freedom with restraint.

Freedom with restraint uses laws to protect the citizens from Might make Right.

Laws that prohibit stealing, Laws that protect children, Laws that protect the innocent.

Those are all restraints that chaft someone out there. just like laws about drugs, laws about curfews, and laws about noise levels.

Within the bounds of the law, you can enjoy your freedom. but like any boundaries, they can shift. they can move in to take away freedoms, and they can move out to grant more. The thing is tho, when they move in, given time, they will move out again.

Freedom without restraint is Anarchy. and that will lead to a society where the perceived loss of freedoms you think you have now will be a paradise to what will appear then.

Just a side note: CRY ANYWAY!

Try reading the vote count. The way you babble on we'd have to wonder why they even agreed to hear the case in the first place since according to you the judgment was going to be so obvious. But FYI, It was 5-4, just one more going the other way and the entire precedent would gone the way of the individual and the property rights of individuals would have had more protection...

What would you have done then?

<sigh>

In addition to reading the decision, you should read my post more clearly.

I don't necessarily agree with majority. And I definitely don't agree with the abuse of eminent domain.

All I'm saying is neither the world nor freedom ended on Thursday -- contrary to some people's rhetoric.

Historically, governments have not had a complete right of eminent domain. The scope of the power was limited by the consitution and they were limited as to the purposes property could be appropriated for.

1. "Historically" the Constitution did not limit the use of eminent domain by state and local governments for the first 100 years or so of our Republic.

2. Eminent domain is still limited by the Constitution -- your rhetoric to the contrary.

The supreme court has given sanction to an massively enlarged power. Now, all that is required is a land use study and an economic development plan. Neither of which are subject to review.

Bullshit. That is not what the Court held.

For example you don't want old people in your neighborhood now, because that is a sign of "decline" and therefore urban blight, which would justify excersing the power to build a shopping mall.

Bullshit.

To the extent your purpose is to exclude old people, your use of eminent domain would be unconstitutional for multiple reasons.

To the extent you can use eminent domain to condemn blighted neighborhoods, this has nothing to do with the Kelo decision.

Your prejorative language aside, condemning blighted neighborhoods (including non-blighted property within such neighborhoods) for development was acceptable prior to the Kelo decision. See Berman v. Parker (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=348&invol=26), 348 U. S. 26 (1954).

In fact, even Justice O'Connor and the dissenters appear to think eminent domain could be properly used to condemn blighted neighborhoods for development.

Also, the residents never recieve full compensation for their lost property.

Never?

Bullshit. Often, they do not. Particularly if they refuse to sell and require the government to exercise eminent domain.

Rarely, people even come out ahead. I've known it to happen.

But, once again, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with this case.

As to the point about voting people out of office that is just not true. I live in NYC, many times the power of emminent domain has been abused here, most notably in the construction of the World Trade Center. And it did not matter a jot. In a town of 25,000 residents, it really won't effect anything if you seize a few houses; as has been shown in New Jersey and New London Co.(The same people who wholesale condemned viable well maintained neighborhoods - while acting as the strongmen for million dollar condo developers - were either re-elected or went on to higher office.)

LOL.

I mostly agree with you about the abuse of eminent domain.

But your example is the construction of the World Trade Center?

You are talking about use of eminent domain in the 1950s!!!!

Thanks for admitting the Kelo decision has nothing to do with some new phenomenon that suddenly deprives us of freedom.

More frightening is that it creates another option for spendthrift politians. historically, spendthrifts could spend until the debt limit - either imposed or because their munibonds became distressed/junk. At that point spending would have to be cut, or taxes raised to an unsustainable level. This limit no-longer pertains. As in Norwood Ohio, when a municipal government has foolishly spent itself into a hole, it can now make a faustian bargain with a property developer in the hopes that by exercising its power of eminent domain the tax base can be substantianly enlarged. Mostly by converting older residential real estate into commercial property.

Again, I largely agree with your concern about eminent domain and its potentioal for abuse.

But, again, this has little to do with the Kelo decision.

In any case, the entire basis of our economic system is based upon the notion of voluntary exchange. When government can direct property be transfered from one party to another without the mediation of a market system, the entire basis of the real property market collapses. You may think your house is worth $250,000 on the open market, but watch what happens when a developer seeks to have it condemned.

As you know if you read the decision, the government cannot simply seize the property of A and transfer it to B.

You are arguing against a strawman.

This is nothing more than government sanctioned theft on the behalf of those that have political influence. And even if you have a somewhat sanguine attitude towards the exercise of muncipal powers, the immorality of the whole scheme should offend you. Not to mention the Supreme Court just threw the bill of rights onto the ground an squeezed out a huge fucking turd on it.

The immorality of Congress, states, or local governments when they engage in these actions should offend us.

But blaming the Supreme Court is a bit silly. All they did was say that the 5th Amendment does not forbid the use of eminent domain to further public plans for economic development.

The particular use in question was a narrow expansion of past decisions. Obviously it was a close call. I probably would have decided differently.

But to act like this came out of the blue or simply ignores the 5th Amendment is ridiculous.

Finally, if you are over 55, and live in a single family home in a neighborhood with a smattering of other retirees and nice views. Be afraid. You're next. Especially if your town is running a budget deficit.

Nice fear-mongering. This is no more true today that it was on Wednesday.

My only hope now is that Congress excerises its commerce clause power, and slaps the states down.

I agree. That this is not forbidden by the Constitution does not mean it should be allowed to happen.

You must not be one of those who would narrowly interpret the Commerce Clause. I can see the heads of some of the conservatives and libertarians on here exploding. ;)

Thank you Cat. Now I don't have to commit suicide.
And no, I didn't read all the decisions. Legalese is hard for some of us to pull the real meaning out of. I'm just too tired to read all of every single one.

BTW Cat, I love John Prine. I think I only know about a half dozen people who have even heard of him. But then again, look where I live.

yes, freedom with restraint.

A contradiction of terms.

A contradiction of terms.
So there shoud not be laws keeping people from harming others? It's only freedom if one has the freedom to do whatever they like, no matter twho it affects?

A contradiction of terms.I take it you are advocating complete freedom for everyone to do anything they please.
The Jeffrey Dahmers of the world must be cheering you on.

I'm advocating individual responsibility in all aspects. If you wish to live securely then buy a gun, learn to defend yourself, or hire a security force. A local community could hire a large scale security force that would essentially be a police department. The difference is if someone felt they didn't want to pay for the security then they'd be free not to, and the security forces would be free from having to protect them.

If people have too many freedoms we would have complete anarchy
people wouldnt go to jail because it would violate their freedom to live anywhere and people would have the freedom to murder and steal

I'm advocating individual responsibility in all aspects. If you wish to live securely then buy a gun, learn to defend yourself, or hire a security force. A local community could hire a large scale security force that would essentially be a police department. The difference is if someone felt they didn't want to pay for the security then they'd be free not to, and the security forces would be free from having to protect them.

and if they couldn't afford it, what then? Lets bring the analogy of ancient Carthage, round about the end of the 1st Punic war. At the end of the war, the Carthaginians could not pay the merceries they hired (and in cases, would not)
In return, the mercs tried to sack the city. The Carthaginian people had weapons, and had to defend themselves from their own security.#

This is acceptable?

and if they couldn't afford it, what then?
As with the typical hard-core libertarian- screw them.
You know they believe the government shouldn't help the less fortunate. Only private charity should exsist. Like that's worked so well throughout mankinds history.

I'm advocating individual responsibility in all aspects. If you wish to live securely then buy a gun, learn to defend yourself, or hire a security force. A local community could hire a large scale security force that would essentially be a police department. The difference is if someone felt they didn't want to pay for the security then they'd be free not to, and the security forces would be free from having to protect them.you mention Local Community. even within that community there is restraint. Try excercising your right to blast your stereo at 2:00 in the morning. your neighbors will be quick to restrain you... are they wrong to doing so? Community boards dictact how your front lawn should look like, are they wrong to do so?

Are you saying Police should be paid to provide service? thus they are not only answerable to those who pay them but will enforce their Payer's viewpoints and definitions of Freedom on others. and what happens when the police realizes they either a) don't want to protect you or b) decide to hold you up and take everything you own, including your life. no restraint on freedom works for everyone. you realize this right? What you are saying is Might makes right. I buy a gun for security and you walk into my property, I can then declare you a threat and shoot you with no fear of reprisal because there is no restraint, no laws.

That is Freedom without Restraint.

and if they couldn't afford it, what then? Lets bring the analogy of ancient Carthage, round about the end of the 1st Punic war. At the end of the war, the Carthaginians could not pay the merceries they hired (and in cases, would not)
In return, the mercs tried to sack the city. The Carthaginian people had weapons, and had to defend themselves from their own security.#

This is acceptable?

Isn't it the most natural course of history of all? Survival of the fittest. In any case the fittest can be a collection of people, who form their own government because they have the freedom to do so. The part that they don't have the freedom to do is to enforce morality upon others. So I believe any time there is punishment for any "crime" other than an attack on freedom then injustice has been served. I'm not advocating the complete and total absence of government, I'm advocating the complete and total absence of a government that believes it can declare with totality what is "right" or "wrong" and thusly restrict your life because they deem you to be in their "jurisdiction." Obviously if you restrict someone else's life, then you're the enemy I fear and hate.

Yes.

I think that it is possible that if you are a male, under 18 (I think it is 18), and was raped by another person under 18, then you could probably get arrested for the Statory rape or whatever the age one is, and if it was a girl, who became pregnant, and had the baby, then you would also have to support the child financially, that is if she tells teh gov't your name or do whatever.

Also the S Court has ruled that the government can seize your property, and use it to fund/etc private works (what were they thinking).

If the pres wanted to, he could dismiss the house of Reps and Senators, and since I am sure that they are the ones who appoint the Supreme Court Judeges, then he would control over that, and become dictator like.

The local government doesnt even make any sense (or at least around me). They built a nuclear powerplant on an island, although if it got into a melt down, everyone would kindof die, just to see if it would work. Then they saw it worked, so they moved it (or parts of it), and we are still paying for it with our taxes (this was a while ago). Raising standards in our talk means to give the students sheets that tell you all the answers you would need to know in science, and you dont have to memorize several equation in math, as they give you around ten.

Isn't it the most natural course of history of all? Survival of the fittest. In any case the fittest can be a collection of people, who form their own government because they have the freedom to do so. The part that they don't have the freedom to do is to enforce morality upon others. So I believe any time there is punishment for any "crime" other than an attack on freedom then injustice has been served. I'm not advocating the complete and total absence of government, I'm advocating the complete and total absence of a government that believes it can declare with totality what is "right" or "wrong" and thusly restrict your life because they deem you to be in their "jurisdiction." Obviously if you restrict someone else's life, then you're the enemy I fear and hate.LOL
Yeah, I can just see you if the world worked that way. Except in your little fantasy you're at the top of the heap. You're the guy with the money to pay your "loyal" security forces. You're the guy telling the "less fit" that they're shit out of luck.

But guess what? Anybody without the smarts or imagination to see how that actually would work wouldn't be at the top of the heap. Get real. Get out of your little powertrip fantasy.

I can just see you whining for the return of the unjust freedom-killing government you despise. Because you're going to be stuck at the bottom getting the shaft like the other 90% of the little guys.

BTW, we had a time rather like that. Ever heard of robber barons?

Try to gain some perspective. The Constitution is still in place, we haven't really lost any freedoms ( unless you know something I don't ), and things have a way of coming back around. Relax! [ hands you a beer ] :)

Be clear, the consitition is still in place but is largely being ignored by the Supreme Court and other courts around the nation. They have systematically chipped away at the consitituion for the last two hundred years and neither the Legislative or Executive branches -- supposedly co-equal with the Judicary branch -- have done spit to deal with it.

Any non-originalist on the supreme court should be impeeched. If we WANT a law to say something or an un-enumerated right to BE a right, the governers of this country (the citicenry) should demand it be written into legislation by their elected Legislators (the ONLY ones with power to create law), signed by their elected president. Period. That his how our country is designed to function.

Not only have a wholy unaccountable, politicaly unimpeechable, handful of men and women taken unchecked power over the other branches of government but an entire political body in the country supports this by demanding potential judges stand by decisions that the common man in the street can see are contrary to the decsions of the framers and patently contrary to the consitituion, the document these judges swore to protect (perhaps they crossed their fingers). The framers (really guys, go read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, read the other documents from the consititional framers on the subject of the judicery) explicitly did not want the judicary part of the process of law review, yet that is precisly what the supreme court does: reviews every law somebody has an issues with; and often does it using bad past court decisions (or the thinking that got them to that decision) as a basis for removing laws that are plainly the desire of the people -- the people, the citizens, who the constitution empowers to run the country.

Every day our constitution dies a little more. Every day our country becomes less and less free. Every time a non-originalist is appointed we spill our substance, and our future, into the ground. Every time you hear a political party use a litmus test of past Supreme Court decisions to determine if a judge is 'fit' for the bench, you witness traitors to our heritage.

Isn't it the most natural course of history of all? Survival of the fittest.[a] In any case the fittest can be a collection of people, who form their own government[b] because they have the freedom to do so. The part that they don't have the freedom to do is to enforce morality upon others.[c] So I believe any time there is punishment for any "crime" other than an attack on freedom then injustice has been served.[d] I'm not advocating the complete and total absence of government, I'm advocating the complete and total absence of a government that believes it can declare with totality what is "right" or "wrong" and thusly restrict your life because they deem you to be in their "jurisdiction."[e] Obviously if you restrict someone else's life, then you're the enemy I fear and hate.[f]
[a] if you want survival of the fittest at a species level, then you are not talking government, but individuals. if you are looking at it on a national level, then the Government can dictate what ever it want to remain the fittest.

[b] once they form their own Government (with heads and laws) then they give up their own personal Freedoms in favor of the laws set forth by that Government. the definition of Government is:
gov·ern·ment
n.
1 The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2 The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3 Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4 The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5 A governing body or organization, as:
a The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c The persons who make up a governing body.
6 A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7 Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8 Political science.
9 Grammar. The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

[c] as the Government, any form of Government, they can do what ever they want. they can be despots, they can be dictators or they can listen to the people and find the middle ground. they can even prevent you from leaving their 'Nation' if the Government so wishes.

[d] so if by what you are saying, if someone were to ransack your house, it's ok, since they did not attack your freedom. they can rape you (and as long as they let you go thus not attack your freedom) and the government can't do anything.

[e]The Government can declare what is right and wrong. what defines a persons rights in any nation? the Government. That Government can add and remove those rights as it so wishes. their "Jurisdiction" is on their property. As long as you are on US soil, you are subject to US Laws. thus fall under US Jurisdiction. same if you were in Japan, Canada, Australia or any other country. the only exceptions are the embassies which are considered soils of the country claiming the building.

[f] but laws restrict people's lives, they set a drinking age, a driving age, even when you can legally stop going to school. They also protect minors from sexual preditors, protect people from discrimiation, and protect the weak from the strong. so you hate all forms of governments because of the laws they set.

Isn't it the most natural course of history of all? Survival of the fittest. In any case the fittest can be a collection of people, who form their own government because they have the freedom to do so. The part that they don't have the freedom to do is to enforce morality upon others. So I believe any time there is punishment for any "crime" other than an attack on freedom then injustice has been served. I'm not advocating the complete and total absence of government, I'm advocating the complete and total absence of a government that believes it can declare with totality what is "right" or "wrong" and thusly restrict your life because they deem you to be in their "jurisdiction." Obviously if you restrict someone else's life, then you're the enemy I fear and hate.

Thats not what Darwin said, he said something along the lines of survival of the most adapted to the situation/competition (but much better).

Yes its survival of the fittest if we were all in clans, and used no weapons, and it would involve food/water/more food/mates, but in a human made enviroment it is more of death to random generic wo/man #x/y.

This is confusing me a little "So I believe any time there is punishment for any 'crime' other than an attack on freedom then injustice has been served." because it translates in Meinese to, if you are punished for any reason that is not an attack on freedom then you were wronged. If you were punished, then you must have violated somebody's freedom, but the punishment would also violate yours. For example, I have the freedom to buy a yacht, that does not mean I am rich enough to buy one, but not allowing me to buy one would violate that right. So then I steal the yacht (this is all hypothetical) I would have fulfilled my right to own a yacht ("buying" is through the process of stealing), but violated someone's right of property. That is a "'Crime'" (A quote of your quote I am that good, now how would some one quote that, it goes "''", no other levels. Ha sentence structure), which violates a persons rights.

Be clear, the consitition is still in place but is largely being ignored by the Supreme Court and other courts around the nation. They have systematically chipped away at the consitituion for the last two hundred years and neither the Legislative or Executive branches -- supposedly co-equal with the Judicary branch -- have done spit to deal with it.

Any non-originalist on the supreme court should be impeeched. If we WANT a law to say something or an un-enumerated right to BE a right, the governers of this country (the citicenry) should demand it be written into legislation by their elected Legislators (the ONLY ones with power to create law), signed by their elected president. Period. That his how our country is designed to function.

Not only have a wholy unaccountable, politicaly unimpeechable, handful of men and women taken unchecked power over the other branches of government but an entire political body in the country supports this by demanding potential judges stand by decisions that the common man in the street can see are contrary to the decsions of the framers and patently contrary to the consitituion, the document these judges swore to protect (perhaps they crossed their fingers). The framers (really guys, go read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, read the other documents from the consititional framers on the subject of the judicery) explicitly did not want the judicary part of the process of law review, yet that is precisly what the supreme court does: reviews every law somebody has an issues with; and often does it using bad past court decisions (or the thinking that got them to that decision) as a basis for removing laws that are plainly the desire of the people -- the people, the citizens, who the constitution empowers to run the country.

Every day our constitution dies a little more. Every day our country becomes less and less free. Every time a non-originalist is appointed we spill our substance, and our future, into the ground. Every time you hear a political party use a litmus test of past Supreme Court decisions to determine if a judge is 'fit' for the bench, you witness traitors to our heritage.becareful with that suggestion, after all, the term "Seperation of Church and state" was adopted and used by the Surpreme courts of the land. they are the ones that define the Constitution. if you argue about their job to define the constitution then all their decisions are suspect.

Isn't it the most natural course of history of all? Survival of the fittest. In any case the fittest can be a collection of people, who form their own government because they have the freedom to do so. The part that they don't have the freedom to do is to enforce morality upon others. So I believe any time there is punishment for any "crime" other than an attack on freedom then injustice has been served. I'm not advocating the complete and total absence of government, I'm advocating the complete and total absence of a government that believes it can declare with totality what is "right" or "wrong" and thusly restrict your life because they deem you to be in their "jurisdiction." Obviously if you restrict someone else's life, then you're the enemy I fear and hate.

So you would disagree with this:

[A]ll Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed

And you would disagree with the idea that the People of the United States may ordain and establish a Constitution "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

I love it when so-called libertarians express a hatred for liberty. :p

So you would disagree with this:
[snip]
I love it when so-called libertarians express a hatred for liberty. :p
I love ya Cat...

you said you are a lawyer... may I ask what kind?

Be clear, the consitition is still in place but is largely being ignored by the Supreme Court and other courts around the nation. They have systematically chipped away at the consitituion for the last two hundred years and neither the Legislative or Executive branches -- supposedly co-equal with the Judicary branch -- have done spit to deal with it.

ROTFLASTC

So, our government has been violating the Constitution since it was first ratified?

Any non-originalist on the supreme court should be impeeched. If we WANT a law to say something or an un-enumerated right to BE a right, the governers of this country (the citicenry) should demand it be written into legislation by their elected Legislators (the ONLY ones with power to create law), signed by their elected president. Period. That his how our country is designed to function.

But your own definition the Founders don't qualify as a originalists. :rolleyes: (Which, in fact, is accurate as many expressly said they did not want the Constitution to be limited by their subjective intent.)

You might note that the Ninth Amendment expressly protects un-enumerated rights.

You might also note that Constitution has been amended -- some 27 times. Perhaps most importantly, the 14th Amendment significantly changed our constitutional scheme.

Not only have a wholy unaccountable, politicaly unimpeechable, handful of men and women taken unchecked power over the other branches of government but an entire political body in the country supports this by demanding potential judges stand by decisions that the common man in the street can see are contrary to the decsions of the framers and patently contrary to the consitituion, the document these judges swore to protect (perhaps they crossed their fingers).

Try a civics lesson 101. Particularly separation of powers and checks and balances.

The judiciary branch was expressly designed to be insulated from public opinion. Its power is not entirely unchecked however.

Your vague rantings make it unclear what decisions you think are "contrary to the decisions of the framers" (nor do you explain why that is even relevant) or "patently contrary to the [C]onstitution."

The framers (really guys, go read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, read the other documents from the consititional framers on the subject of the judicery) explicitly did not want the judicary part of the process of law review, yet that is precisly what the supreme court does: reviews every law somebody has an issues with; and often does it using bad past court decisions (or the thinking that got them to that decision) as a basis for removing laws that are plainly the desire of the people -- the people, the citizens, who the constitution empowers to run the country.

LOL.

Beyond having an utter lack of understanding of constitutional law, you simply do not understand that judicial review is precisely the realm of the judiciary.

Read Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 US 137, 176-180 (1803) -- particularly pages 176-180.

Then explain how (1) your original intent arguments squares with the fact the Founders themselves rejected your view in 1803 and (2) why Chief Justice Marshall is wrong. Good luck. :)

Every day our constitution dies a little more. Every day our country becomes less and less free. Every time a non-originalist is appointed we spill our substance, and our future, into the ground. Every time you hear a political party use a litmus test of past Supreme Court decisions to determine if a judge is 'fit' for the bench, you witness traitors to our heritage.

Pffft.

According to you this has been going on since the day the Constitution was ratified. Color me unconvinced.

I am not in chains. Are you? I'd say we are all more free -- particularly blacks, women, and minorities.

Pure originalism is a rather feeble approach to the Constitution -- particularly as originalism is itself against the original intent of the Founders. :p

I love ya Cat...

you said you are a lawyer... may I ask what kind?

:D Thank you.

Generally, a litigator.

Until recently, my primary practice was patent litigation -- mostly for large corporations. Although I did some criminal defense as well.

Previously, I have worked as a prosecutor and public defender. I have also practiced Elder Law and Social Security Disability cases.

EDIT: I also clerked with a US Court of Appeals judge and have worked on various civil rights cases and appeals.

:D Thank you.

Generally, a litigator.

Until recently, my primary practice was patent litigation -- mostly for large corporations. Although I did some criminal defense as well.

Previously, I have worked as a prosecutor and public defender. I have also practiced Elder Law and Social Security Disability cases.
"Elder Law?" Do say more! :)

Hello any 1gona listen to me i need a girlfriend please semd me a email at ljcool05@hotmail.com
So do I; stop whining - It won't do any good (I've tried).

"Elder Law?" Do say more! :)

You know .... where we round up the old buggers and send them to the work camps. ;)

Estate planning, long-term care, medicaid, medical directives, nursing home issues, legal guardianship, etc.

BTW Cat, I love John Prine. I think I only know about a half dozen people who have even heard of him. But then again, look where I live.
I live where lots of people have heard of him. I love him too, but not $40 PER TICKET much.

I live where lots of people have heard of him. I love him too, but not $40 PER TICKET much.

C'mon, it is easily worth $40 to get a chance to worship me in person. ;) :D

:D Thank you.

Generally, a litigator.

Until recently, my primary practice was patent litigation -- mostly for large corporations. Although I did some criminal defense as well.

Previously, I have worked as a prosecutor and public defender. I have also practiced Elder Law and Social Security Disability cases.It's fun to see you in action, and really fun to try to stand against you... :D

C'mon, it is easily worth $40 to get a chance to worship me in person. ;) :D
You're a lawyer, huh? Considering that the John Prine tickets would figure to be about $25 per hour, that'd be CHEAP. That Public Defender era musta warped your idea of lawyerly billing. ;)

You're a lawyer, huh? Considering that the John Prine tickets would figure to be about $25 per hour, that'd be CHEAP. That Public Defender era musta warped your idea of lawyerly billing. ;)
LOL

Too bad his pro bono days are probably over.